# Question
Title: How to exploit an opponent's time trouble? (no increment)
Supposing my opponent has little time left and I have much more than him (e.g. 10 minutes to 50, or 1 to 5, or 20 seconds to 1 minute).
What are good strategies that take advantage of my rival's time situation?

I read this article, and I will quote this part which I liked:

> When the opponent is in time trouble, Webb advocated the barrage technique which involves planning two or more moves ahead, and then playing them in rapid succession. The idea is to give the opponent little time to prepare for the second move, increasing the probability of that move being a mistake. Playing a barrage of moves does increase the chance of a blunder from the barrager as well, and the technique is inadvisable in a winning position where a player should focus on winning on the board.\[2\]

I agree that you should focus on your own game, but taking into account the opponent's time may help you. One idea could be to delay exchanges to make the game longer and make complicated positions on the board.

Edit: I'm playing blitz/rapid chess with times between 3 and 30 minutes, without any increment, and online.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Don't try to blitz him by playing fast; now you both are playing without thinking much and you've lost the point of the time advantage.

In general, you should still just try to play the best moves. But if there is any general strategy, it is to avoid forced moves on both sides, so that he has more to consider on every move. Unless it is advantageous, don't start some sequence of captures or checks or an otherwise forced sequence, as he will be able to play a few moves in a row very fast. Keep your threats active and play quiet moves.

If he is really really low on time (like, under a minute), then while your clock is ticking he will probably be looking at a few of your possible moves and trying to come up with a response to each of them that he can play instantly. If you play a different, quiet, move instead, he is likely to waste a few seconds just trying to make sense of it before he can even formulate a good response.

# Answer
> 4 votes
* Do not play fast.

This is a common pitfall. He/She is the one who has to play fast, not you. Take your time and find a good move. Your opponent can't compete with you as he/she doesn't have enough time.

* Do not simplify the game, make it more complex.

Obviously, complicated positions are disadvantageous for the one who is in time trouble.

* Don't think you won already.

You didn't, yet. If you sit back and relax, bad things gonna happen. Stay sharp.

# Answer
> 1 votes
"I'm playing blitz chess with times between 3 and 30 minutes, without any increment, and it's not over the board (it's online)."

a: That is not blitz. b: Wikipedia does not qualify to give advice about chess.

The best advice you can get, and this I got from a GM (James Rizzitano), is "Play the board." By playing to your opponents time pressure, you put yourself in time pressure. Simple as that. A good move is a good move.

The only time - the only time - this idea can work is if you are losing and you want to complicate the game to try and gain an advantage, as stated in the quote.

Otherwise, play good moves and do not change your thinking process.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Find the sharpest, most complicated variation that the position (and your own ability) will support. Take a reasonable amount of time to do this, because you have it, and your opponent doesn't.

Once you've formed your plan, play it out step by step. Make your moves in natural tempo, let your strategy unfold, and let your opponent panic in time trouble.

A cautionary put out by another poster holds: This is not the time to "sit back and relax," and possibly let your opponent catch up. This is the time to play "hard," the hardest game you can possibly play, and hope that your opponent doesn't have the time to play it with you.

# Answer
> -1 votes
I am unused to playing timed games, so excuse my poor experience.

I would suggest putting the opponent into uncomfortable situations where they must defend from several possible attacks at the same time. Instead of starting your attack, you just threaten with another piece and so on. This will (theoretically) force the opposition to increase their calculation time since they must consider so many possibilities on each move. Eventually, as they run out of time, they will begin to make desperate moves. As long as you give them as little time as possible to think during your moves, you can keep them on edge and increase the chances of making a mistake (at which point you will have multiple attacks lined up to launch in a form of barrage to gain a severe advantage). As with most approaches regarding this situation, you need to make sure you don't make any mistakes while limiting your own thinking time as much as possible. High risk, high reward.

---
Tags: best-practice, time-management
---


title: Top player with the lowest drawing rate

text:
# Question
Title: Top player with the lowest drawing rate
Which player of the top 50 has the lowest drawing rate ? Who is it in the top 100 ?

And which woman in the top 50 has the lowest drawing rate ?

# Answer
> 13 votes
Looks like I am late to the party. Anyway:

Free PGNs of many top players are available here. Almost all 2700+ players are there. As for women, only a few from very top are there. These PGN files have anywhere from few hundred to couple thousand games available for each player. Although this does not fully comply with OPs request, it seems like an improvement over the current only answer. If you have some better/more PGNs available, you can post a download link in a comment or run them through this script and suggest an edit to this answer.

## The results

## EDIT

Bonus - world champions.

Also of interest - Morphy and Anderssen have amazing draw rates of 0.085 and 0.1, respectively.

# Answer
> 2 votes
According to the FIDE statistics, caruana draws 40 percent of the time and nakamura draws 41 percent. Out of top 12 individuals I checked, these are the lowest. Nakamura is famous for not accepting or offering draws but likes to play everything out.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Without controlling for strength and for strength of opposition the above is largely meaningless--no offense intended. You would expect Bobby Fischer to play fewer draws, for example, simply because he so thoroughly outclassed nearly all his opposition.

That does not mean, however, he was not predisposed to drawing. It means that he didn't play enough players of his caliber for us to know his tendencies.

The converse is true--take a weak player who likes playing over his head. He won't draw often, but that does not mean he is not predisposed to drawing.

You'll have a better chance of generating a meaningful result if you account for strength of opposition, eliminate games played for GMs when their rating was under 2500... perhaps a variable coefficient based on strength of opposition... you get the idea.

---
Tags: draw, statistics, famous-players
---


# Question
Title: Help trying to invent a tactical chess opening
I need help!

I am trying to invent something out of my own imagination. But something isn't right... I am playing as white and I can't figure out why is it that I have the feeling about losing a pawn on c3?

```
[FEN ""]

1. Nf3 Nf6
2. g3 g6
3. Bg2 Bg7
4. O-O O-O
5. c3 Nc6
6. b3 d5
7. d4 Bf5
8. Be3 Ne4
9. Nh4 Qd7

```

Any suggestions and opinions will be much appreciated.

# Answer
The Be3 would make more sense on b2 since that would not only support c3 and d4, but also make room for opening the centre via e4 later (after Rf1-e1). Placing a bishop on the 3rd rank in the centre with the pawn behind still on the 2nd rank tends to become awkward.
> 1 votes

# Answer
If you're afraid of losing c3, you shouldn't play b3 in the first place (unless you intend to fianchetto the bishop, as @Ras mentions). Black also doesn't threaten to occupy c4 (or a4) with a piece. Remember that pawns cannot move backwards, so every time you move a pawn you lose control over the squares you leave behind.

Also, if you're trying to play/invent tactical openings, you're better off starting with 1. e4. The open positions which arise from these opening offer more chance for tactics.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, beginner
---


title: Promotion transition

text:
# Question
Title: Promotion transition
What is the point at which promotion occurs? Does the pawn as it enters the 8th rank become a promoted piece as it enters or does it have to occupy as a pawn then be promoted? If promotion occurs as it enters then a pawn would not be blocked from moving to the 8th rank if some piece was in its way.

# Answer
When a pawn reaches the 8th rank, it then must be promoted to a Queen, Rook, Bishop or Knight. The pawn can capture normally to reach the 8th rank. IE fxg8=Q, but as we know the pawns don't attack pieces whom are directly blocking them so captures straight is not an option.

According the the FIDE 2017 handbook promotions can be done in numerous ways: 4.6.1 the pawn does not have to be placed on the square of arrival, 4.6.2 removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of promotion may occur in any order. 4.6.3 If an opponent’s piece stands on the square of promotion, it must be captured. It is worth noting that incorrectly promoting in Blitz or Rapid games results in a loss by illegal move according to the official rules.
> 5 votes

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


# Question
Title: A good site to learn Anki for chess openings?
Can someone tell me a good website in order to learn to use Anki for chess opening improvement?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Anki is a program for spaced repetition. You can use it to train chess without being online at all.

Chesstempo is a site on which you can train chess and it also allows you to use spaced repetition.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Does engine score correlate with winning chances?
I was wondering if there is a statistical or probabilistic (at least approximate) way of looking at a score of a chess position of a certain fixed engine, say "crafty version 5" for example.

i.e. maybe +2 could be interpreted as "if the engine keeps on playing, 60% wins white, 30% black and 10% draw. I know this isn't the purpose of the score, but maybe it can be translated to approximate probabilities, maybe someone has done a statistical test with hundreds of games to see the correlation. And the amount of draw maybe depends on the "sharpness" of the position.

# Answer
> 6 votes
On the website of Houdini, one of the best chess engines (see for instance CCRL or CEGT), the author writes

> Houdini 4 uses calibrated evaluations in which engine scores correlate directly with the win expectancy in the position. A +1.00 pawn advantage gives a 80% chance of winning the game against an equal opponent at blitz time control. At +2.00 the engine will win 95% of the time, and at +3.00 about 99% of the time. If the advantage is +0.50, expect to win nearly 50% of the time.

The Chess Programming Wiki mentions a study where data from more than 400 000 computer games have been used to find a relation between pawn advantage (P) and winning percentage (W).

> W = 1 / (1+10^(-P/4))

---
Tags: engines, statistics, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: The New Art of Defense in Chess vs The Art Defense in Chess
Is The New Art of Defense in Chess or The Art Defense in Chess better? I am 1900 on an upward trend.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Yes, the new book is quite different to the old one:

> On the whole, however, *The New Art of Defense in Chess* **should be seen as a fundamentally new book**. This is because Soltis recognizes the way in which dynamism and activity have become fundamental to modern defensive techniques.

Source: ChessBookReviews, emphasis is mine.

Synthesising the review, the reasons why the book is different is because:

* Computer analysis has helped players find flaws in the attack in postmortems, which they use to improve their defensive technique
* Players are more open to playing 'ugly', counter intuitive moves that are based on concrete analysis
* After Tal's reign as world champion, players realised that active defensive is usually better than passive defence

---
Tags: books, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Are there non-Chess games that use a chess board with "black on the right"
Are there any non-Chess games that use a chess board where the bottom-right hand cell for each player is black rather than white?

# Answer
> 4 votes
In Spain checkers is played with the board placed that way. Alternatively you can place the board the same way as chess, but then pieces are placed at light squares.

---
Tags: chessboards
---


title: Board order in chess olympiads

text:
# Question
Title: Board order in chess olympiads
What's stopping teams in chess olympiads from mixing up their board order to gain an advantage? All I could find was the rules (http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/chess\_olympiad\_regulations.pdf) that said that the board order couldn't be switched in between rounds.

However, even without changing board order, being able to arrange the boards independently of playing strength can be used to gain an advantage. For example, suppose we had players A,B,C,D,D', where player A is stronger than player B, player B is stronger than player C, player C is stronger than player D, and player D is the same strength as player D'.

Instead of ordering the players by strength, we could put player D' at first board, and then place the remaining players by strength (so player A is second and so on).

In each round, we only play four players. If we have the first board sit out, we could get the usual board order by playing strength. However, we could also have the fifth board sit out, in which case we have shifted our top three boards down by one, which could be useful against a stronger opponent (especially one that is top heavy).

---

(Related question: Are the board positions of the 4 players of each country determined by Elo rating in chess olympiads?)

# Answer
> 7 votes
Well, in short, nothing. This (a *tactical lineup*) is actually quite common in team matches. There are basically two problems, the second of which is not a problem in the Olympiad because of the fixed board order.

* Chess isn't an exact science; a weaker player can beat a stronger player (the odds that this happens are just lower). Given the ratings, you can calculate the expected score of a match where both teams are lined up in the regular way, and the expected score when one of the teams employs a tactical lineup. See below for some details.
* If you do this too often, the opposing team can prepare and put their weakest player on board one (or even their second weakest player, putting their weakest player on board two, which results in *them* having a tactical lineup instead).

Here are some calculations based on the formula mentioned here for the expected score. As you see, the tactical lineup increases the expected score for the team by only 0.01 point.

---
Tags: rules, team, chess-olympiad
---


# Question
Title: How is a player rated who has similar results against a wide range of players?
There is a player I know, whom I would guess to be somewhere between 1600-1800 in strength (call it 1700) who has an unusual profile.

He's a defensive player who's good enough to beat players 1500 and under most of the time. But he stops beating players as they approach the 1600 level, even though he seldom loses to them. Against players in the 1600-1800 range, he wins 10%-15% of the time, loses 10%-15% of the time, and draws the remaining 70% Against players in the 1800-2000 level his stats are slightly worse, about 15% wins, 25% losses, and 60% draws. His loss rate rises as he plays opponents above 2000. But basically, he gets similar results against people in a (wide) range of 1600-2000.

What are the dynamics of this player's rating? Will he get points for beating 1500 players more often than other 1700 players? Will his ability to draw against players up to 2000 also pull up his rating above 1700? Or will his lack of wins hold down his rating?

# Answer
The Elo system treats every player as if his expected score against for example -200 -100 0 100 200 points stronger players would be 24 36 50 64 76 percent. If your real expected score deviates from this assumed distribution it just means that the Elo rating doesn't describe your strength very well.

In a way that is actually the norm and the culprit is the huge drawing range in chess. Stronger players on average slightly underperform against weaker opposition afaik, because drawing with white is just a little too easy.

In your special case the players rating would fluctuate depending on his opposition without his actual strength changing all that much. If he manages to get a steady diet of 1800-2000 opponents his rating would rise above 1800, if his opponents are between 1600 and 1700, his rating would stay in that range.

This doesn't actually mean much and it isn't particularly unusual. It's only relevant in team matches or if you need to maximise your rating to be eligible for titles or something.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I'm not completely sure what your exact question is, but this may help clarify things for you.

Keep in mind that an Elo rating only makes sense within a given population of players, and the difference between the ratings of two players serves to predict the result of a competition between those two players. Also, remember that the ratings of your friend's opponents are not static - just as your friend's rating changes over time as a result of his play, so do his opponents' ratings. There's no such thing as a "2000 player", per se - there are only players who are rated 2000 as a result of play within a given population of players. The Elo rating isn't like a "skill level" or anything, like, "if you have this rating, then you have X, Y, and Z skills".

When your friend plays an opponent, the difference between their ratings is a predictor of the eventual result. So if your friend is rated 1600, and plays 6 games against an opponent also rated 1600, then your friend's expected result would be 3.0 - which could come as 3 wins and 3 losses, all 6 games drawn, or some other combination. If the result is different than that - say, your friend scores 4.0, a better than expected result - then as far as the rating system is concerned, either your friend's rating is too low, or his opponent's rating is too high, or both. So the rating system adjusts both players' ratings - your friend's rating goes up, and his opponent's rating goes down. The amount by which the players' ratings change depends on how different the actual result is from the expected result - and the expected result depends on the difference between your friend's rating, and his opponent's rating. If your friend does better than expected against someone whose rating isn't too different than his, then his rating will go up by a little bit, by a small portion of the K value (and the opponent's rating will go down a little bit, by a small portion of the K value). If your friend does better than expected against someone whose rating is much higher, than your friend's rating will go up by a much larger portion of the K value. Depending on exactly what rating system you're using, and the ratings of the players involved, the K value for each player might be different, so your friend may not gain the same number of rating points as his opponent loses. And of course, if your friend does worse than expected against an opponent, he'll lose some number of rating points, and his opponent will gain rating points, depending of the K value, and exactly how different the actual result is from what the rating system would predict.

But, in either case, the ratings of your friend's opponents are not some fixed, static thing - they're changing too, as a result of actual play.

Does that help answer your question?
> 4 votes

---
Tags: rating
---


# Question
Title: Based on their separate and mutual records, what chance does Karjakin have against Carlsen?
I was slightly disappointed with the recent result at the Candidates.

Karjakin won, but I just don't think he can match Carlsen for the WCh title.

What is the most accurate prediction of the probability of Karjakin being victorious over Carlsen this November? (I.e. the prediction that takes the most relevant data into consideration.)

# Answer
One of the Russians (Filatov?, maybe even Karjakin himself?) brown-nosed to the media that every match is 50-50 odds on the face of it...

But more seriously, Carlsen's rating has consistently been 2850 plus/minus a small amount (20) for some time now, while Karjakin has been more volatile, currently 2775 (near his career best 2788 of July 2011). So I think a 75 Elo advantage in raw strength must be assumed from the outset. This is about 60% scoring per game, and if this were the only factor, then over 12 games then Carlsen should win 7.25 to 4.75 or so, or likely 3-1 with 8 draws. Mathematically, one can model it one way or another (Poisson process), and get that if Carlsen is 30% wins, 8% losses, 62% draws in any game (ignoring color as a first approximation), then he has a 86% chance of winning in regulation, 6% of losing in regulation, and 8% chance of reaching a tiebreak. So nominally a bit over 90% for Carlsen, by Elo.

OK, that's the pure stats version (like Chess by the Numbers might give). What sort of "corrections" to raw Elo might one give here? First there is the "hunger" factor, which I tend to discount. Second there is the preparation work of each (and their armies of helpers), where Karjakin might have a slight edge. But even if Karjakin wins one full game by prep (rather unlikely, at best he probably gets a superior position in two or three games, with a lot of work still to do), Carlsen still has about a 75% chance of winning by the above Elo estimation.

Finally there is the "grappling" aspect, whether the strength of one player matches up against the weakness of the other, or vice-versa. This is where the chess knowledge of their styles and past meetings would come into play. Karjakin seems assured that his Queen's Indian Defense against d4 can hold as Black, and I'd expect him to play the Berlin against e4. On the other hand, Carlsen has shown himself quite happy to play Nf3 systems (including early g3), just to divert from theory, so I can't think this means much.

As for later in the game, I would say that Karjakin's technical capacity (endings, maybe also material imbalances), both in conversion and defense, is probably slightly superior to Carlsen's, maybe simply because the latter is never pushed so hard in this direction. But Carlsen has the clear edge in semi-dynamic positions (think Fischer), and I don't think Karjakin can hope to avoid these for 12 games (including 6 Blacks). Finally, both seem to play "messy" positions reasonably well, though perhaps not like a specialist might (Morozevich, just to name a name).

But this might be Karjakin's best meta-plan, to aim for chaos game-after-game, hoping that Carlsen cracks, and/or starts to doubt himself. Unfortunately, Karjakin's style is more typically "small-ball", where he nibbles away with a small edge, first ensuring two results (especially on the Russian team, they would give him White on Board 2 or 3 against a 2650-2700, and expect him to grind out a win this way), and then slowly applying pressure for a victory. I don't see this as particularly that effective against Carlsen (or some other 2800ish players for that matter). On the other hand, Karjakin has previously shown himself to be adaptable in style to suit occasions, and if he objectively looks at the Elo calculation of above, might very well decide to play a bit out of character.

This is all to say nothing of the media circus and other side events that can cause disturbance to the players. Carlsen didn't face the "Russian full-court psychology" when playing Anand, but in the end I don't think it will affect him much.
> 19 votes

# Answer
Pinnacle has put the odds at about 75-80% for Carlsen, and Gelfand suggested 65-70%. I personally think both of these are low.

Nigel Short now says only 60%. Maybe the players know more than I do!
> 1 votes

---
Tags: world-championship, carlsen, karjakin
---


title: What are good chess books of 2016?

text:
# Question
Title: What are good chess books of 2016?
I'm rated around 1582 blitz on lichess. My rating is much higher in classical ( around 1900). I have a USCF rating but it is still provisional and I don't think it really reflects my skill (also I'm aware lichess ratings are not extremely accurate).

What current chess books would you think would be good to review. I have read through My System and played through some of the games in Fischer's "My 50 Memorable Games". Now I'm looking for modern books that deal directly with variations, not general material.

Of course I could just google "good chess books on" + opening but this leads to a lot of different options and I was hoping someone here might have more insight.

# Answer
One of the very best opening book series is Grandmaster Repertoire of Quality Chess. Also Chess Stars Publishing is known for publishing high-level opening books.

There is a new chess publisher that looks promising: Thinkers Publishing. Currently, they have an opening book on the Richter-Rauzer and this year they'll publish books discussing the Grünfeld, Taimanov and King's Indian.

You can also take a look at the ChessPub Forum. They have topics on practically every opening line.
> 5 votes

# Answer
> I have read through My System and played through some of the games in Fischer's "My 50 Memorable Games".

I think you need to ask for your money back! My copy of Fischer's book has 60 memorable games ;-)

Seriously, though, Nimzowitsch's My System is regarded as being out of date. I would strongly recommend John Watson's "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy" which is subtitled more accurately as "Advances since Nimzowitsch". Having read My System you will recognize what he is talking about and after reading this book perhaps begin to understand why you lost some games against stronger players who violated Nimzowitsch's principles but still won.

Some of your bad games will also be due to interfering emotions, bad psychology and misconceptions. Two books by Jonathan Rowson, "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins" and "Chess for Zebras (thinking differently about Black and White)" will help you enormously here.

All 3 of these books are like good films that you can watch several times and get more out of them each time.
> 5 votes

# Answer
The Exchange Sacrifice: A Practical Guide by by Sergey Kasparov

Particularly for advanced chess players.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: theory, books
---


title: What's the goal of a minority attack?

text:
# Question
Title: What's the goal of a minority attack?
I understand the definition of a minority pawn attack, is when one side has less pawns than other in a flank of the board (or any sector) and advances them to trade them with the oponent. The question is why would I want to do that? I imagine there is a different purpose of that for every game, but possibly there is a general reason that applies to various games. I heard here: https://youtu.be/ziCLlmz0ATo?t=4m26s that minority attack serve the purpose of leaving pawn weakness. Probably leave an isolated pawn?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The point of the minority attack, you have correctly pointed out, is to force pawn weaknesses. Usually, the weakness that you are going for is to create a backwards pawn. This weakness is very difficult to deal with for your opponent. Normal play is to gang up on the pawn, double your rooks along the file.

# Answer
> 2 votes
A minority attack begins when you have fewer pawns on one side of the board (usually the queen side) and one more pawn on the other side. When pawns are "unbalanced," the game often comes to a "race" between the players' respective strengths on the king and queen sides. If you can tie up the opponent's supposedly "strong" side with a "minority" attack, the strength on your strong side should decide the game in your favor.

So the essential goal of a minority attack is to create a situation where your one fewer pawns is worth as much as your opponent's pawns that number one more (that is two is worth three). This is done by creating a weak enemy pawn that is subject to heavy attack, or is captured outright.

In "Chess Fundamentals," Capablanca expressed it another way: "A unit that holds two." Say you are Black with a pawn on a7. White has two (queen side) pawns on a2 and b2, He unwisely moves a4 (he should have moved the "extra" b pawn first). You play a5!, and now your one pawn is worth two of White's. His b pawn is "backward," and if he moves it to b4, you play a5Xb4, and your new "b" pawn is one step ahead in the queening race against the pawn on a4. So White's two queen side pawns are effective "tied up," and Black's extra king side pawn should win for him.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Ludek Pachmann's "Modern Chess Strategy" covers this and is sufficient to give you enough middle game knowledge for up to about 2000 FIDE level. My IM coach uses this method along with endgame training.

# Answer
> -2 votes
Weaknesses and to open lines against the remaining pawns.

---
Tags: strategy, pawn-structure
---


# Question
Title: Does the French Defense have any variation similar to the King's Indian Defense opening
I recently won with the French Defense. Does Nh3 early on have any benefits?

```
[Fen ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2016.08.10"]
[White "1itsamovie"]
[Black "anandsadasivam"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "675"]
[BlackElo "670"]
[TimeControl "10|0"]
[Termination "anandsadasivam won by checkmate"]

1.e4 e6 2.Nh3 d5 3.d3 dxe4 4.dxe4 Nd7 5.Qf3 Ngf6 6.e5 Nxe5 7.Qg3 Bd6 8.f4 Nc6 9.Na3 Ne4 10.Qxg7 Qh4+
 11.Kd1 Rf8 12.g3 Qh5+ 13.Ke1 Qf3 14.Rg1 Bc5 15.Rg2 Nd4 16.c3 Nf5 17.Qe5 c6 18.g4 Ne3 19.Nf2 Nxg2+ 20.Bxg2 Qxf2+
 21.Kd1 Qg1+ 22.Kc2 Qxg2+ 23.Kb1 Nd2+ 24.Bxd2 Qxd2 25.b4 Be3 26.Nc2 Qc1# 0-1

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
Other than surprise value (dubious value) and keep players out of book, it's a pretty lousy move and goes against basic development principles.

Play good normal moves to guarantee at least equal play. So if you can manage some sort of KID formation it should be sufficient.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The move Nh3 is unusual to say the least. It might have some value later in the game by supporting a White pawn on f4. But when White played it on his second move, there was no such pawn on f4. So it was a "wasted" move that gave you an extra move, and the initiative. A few more bad moves (with the queen and the sacrifice of the e pawn) gave you the game.

---
Tags: french-defense
---


# Question
Title: What is this battleship-style chess variant called?
So I've recently built and published a chess app, targeted at club chess player (like myself). The goal of the app is to educate and make chess more accessible.

I'm working on an update. One of the new features will involve being able to play chess variants, I'm adding variants which I believe help enhance a certain chess skill (tactics, endgames etc.). These are all variants which I play at chess club (for fun and practice).

A chess variant that I think helps players practice endgames is a variant we play, which we call chess-battleships.

The way it works is each player can only see their half of the board. Both players place a predetermined number of pieces anywhere they want, usually 3/4 pawns and one minor piece, plus their king.

Then the full board is revealed to both players and they play out the equal material endgame. This helps players understand endgames and positional play.

My question is does this chess game have an official name? If not I'd be happy to take suggestions as I'm unable to use the trademarked term "battleships" in my app.

Thanks for your time, Liam

# Answer
This is *similar* to **Crazy Screen Chess**:

> **Screen Chess** \- Before the game, both players set up their pieces on the last 4 ranks, with the following restrictions: the bishops must be placed on opposite colors, and only 1 pawn can be placed on a file. Once the game starts, the rules are the same as regular chess, with no castling and no *en passant*.
>
> ...
>
> **Crazy Screen Chess** \- Same as Screen Chess, except with no restrictions on piece placement.

Source: ItsYourTurn.com
> 4 votes

# Answer
It is probably a new Chess Variant not described before (allthough similar elements were used in Chaotenschach in the 1980s).
> 2 votes

# Answer
I would call it a stratego-style chess variant (instead of battleship-style).

For names, my preference is descriptive, and I suggest secret-setup chess.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I'm not sure that this game has a name. But there is a similar game that does called Kriegspiel.

In this variation, each player has the full complement of Black and White pieces in front of them. But they sit back to back, so they can't see each other's moves. You need a third person, an umpire, to tell the two players the consequences of each move: e.g. capture, check, or take it back because it's illegal.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, software, endgame, chess-variants, programming
---


# Question
Title: Why do they keep the scoresheet in classic chess?
In the beginning I thought that players were keeping scoresheets for themselves, just in case of disagreement for claiming stuff like threefold repetition or fifty-move rule or even just knowing the move number, but after watching a few tournaments I realised that it is something more official. It looks like it's mandatory to keep the scoresheet and in the end sign yours, along with the opponent's one.

So my question is why they should do that and what will happen if they are not going to write down the moves?

# Answer
A scoresheet allows for a number of different things.

**1. The scoresheet allows reconstruction of the game.**

This is important for several reasons. Imagine that an earthquake occurs and upsets the board. (Or, more prosaically, the table was set up incorrectly and is upset by a light touch.) If there is no record, how would you reconstruct the position? Replaying a game simply because of an upset board is a tremendous waste of time, and it's far more mental strain than a player should be expected to handle.

Additionally, with modern storage and retrieval abilities, each game is seen as something to learn from. Every single recorded game is one that can teach us new things.

(*Kriegspiel* is an instance where it is vital to record the game for reconstruction. Most of the fun is in the post-game discussion, and it's impossible to do this without recording it.)

**2. The scoresheet allows for arbitration of disputes.**

Without a record, how would you go about proving to an official that 50 moves have occurred without a capture/pawn move? Without a record, how would you prove that your opponent is a scurrilous lout who secretly replaced his Queen on the board while you were in the restroom?

**3. The scoresheet is an aid to players in reconstructing their play during the game.**

Top chess players are able to remember large numbers of variations and lines. However, having the scoresheet available reduces one aspect of mental accounting: The player can always look at the scoresheet and mentally reproduce the game up to that point, rather than attempting to remember "now was it exd5?"

**4. Signing the scoresheet is a way to ensure that both players accept the outcome of the game.**

A player's signature is proof that they are satisfied with what happened. It indicates "yes, I played this match, and it happened this way. I agree that this record is accurate."

FIDE devotes section 8 of the Laws of Chess to the scoresheet. Note particularly that 8.7 states:

> At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game. Even if incorrect, this result shall stand, unless the arbiter decides otherwise.
> 13 votes

# Answer
The two player's scoresheets are the record of the game, and they should "match." They prove how the game went, and players' signing them show that they agree on the end result and outcome.

If for some reason, the scoresheets don't match, the game will have to be "reconstructed" by other means, (the position on the board, eyewitness accounts, etc.) Even so, it's likely that one of the scoresheets will "make sense" in this context.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rules, scoresheet
---


# Question
Title: How to highlight current and previous move of the player in chessboard.js?
I want player 2 to see what last move player 1 has moved. The best way to do this would be to highlight the last move. How is it possible in chessboard.JS?

# Answer
> 1 votes
I wasn't familiar with chessboard.js - but a quick search of their site turned up an example entitled **Piece Highlight 1**, which seems to do just that. The link includes both javascript and HTML examples, depending on which you're looking for.

Since links are not permanent, here is the HTML example:

```
<style type="text/css">
.highlight-white {
  -webkit-box-shadow: inset 0 0 3px 3px yellow;
  -moz-box-shadow: inset 0 0 3px 3px yellow;
  box-shadow: inset 0 0 3px 3px yellow;
}
.highlight-black {
  -webkit-box-shadow: inset 0 0 3px 3px blue;
  -moz-box-shadow: inset 0 0 3px 3px blue;
  box-shadow: inset 0 0 3px 3px blue;
}
</style>
<script src="js/chess.js"></script>
<div id="board" style="width: 400px"></div>

```

---
Tags: chessboards
---


title: Moving into check?

text:
# Question
Title: Moving into check?
I will try to be specific. I was playing a game, and the only piece my opponent could move was their king. It was taking forever for me to checkmate the king. I had a queen, two rooks, and a few pawns, but I was still having difficulty. My question is this: can an opponent move their king into check? For example, how about moving their king into the attacking line of a rook? Can I then capture the king, or does a check have to be initiated from the result of my move? Is it illegal for the opponent to move into a check?

# Answer
It is illegal for a King to move into check, or by moving a piece, expose one's King to check. Check can only happen by the opponent attacking the King.

If this leaves a player with no legal moves, and that player is not in check, then the game is drawn by stalemate.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: rules, checkmate, rooks, kings
---


title: Can two Kings stand next to each other?

text:
# Question
Title: Can two Kings stand next to each other?
My white King is separated from the Black King by one square (between) which is protected by my white rook. I moved my white King next to the black King putting him in check (from the square protected by my rook). My opponent says that this is an illegal move because two Kings cannot face each other. I contend that my white King can threaten the black King from a protected square (by my rook). Who's right?

# Answer
> 20 votes
Your friend is right. Think of it in terms of capturing the king: check means that your king could be captured on your opponent's next move. If you could move your king next to your opponent's king, your king could be captured on your opponent's next move; the fact that **after that** you could capture your opponent's king doesn't change that: your king has been captured, and you've lost the game.

# Answer
> 12 votes
Your friend and the existing answer here are both right: You can't do that.

There's no explicit law of chess for just this situation because it's fully covered by a slightly more general article from the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 3.9.1 The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to the square occupied by the king because they would then leave or place their own king in check.

This covers both your case -- the square is considered 'attacked' by the opponent's king even though it could not be moved there because of the rook -- and other cases, e.g. a piece pinned against it's king is still considered to attack all the squares it could move to were it not for the pin, hence the opposing king cannot be moved to any of them.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Moving your king next to another player's king is illegal.

However, the USCF rules for blitz chess state

"3b) If an illegal position is created or an illegal move made without the opponent making a claim, the position stands and a claim not allowed when the opponent has determined a next move."

While this provision is obscure, it is sometimes amusing. I remember seeing someone in a clearly won endgame position about to queen a pawn under severe time pressure, while his opponent simply moved his king back and forth. Just before the queening pawn move, the ordinarily losing opponent checked the guy with his king. The person who queened did not claim a win before pressing his clock, and he was startled to lose to KxK!

However, I see that the USCF has added explicit mention of this procedure to the rule book:

"16.) Moving the King next to another King is an illegal move. Intentionally playing a king next to the opponent’s in order to take the opponent’s king on the next move (if not caught) is a cheap shot and will not be tolerated! Stop the clock and claim a win because of an illegal move."

The rule book does not define the precise meaning of "will not be tolerated!", nor does it mention whether additional sanctions will be made for laughing.

# Answer
> 5 votes
It is illegal to play a move that results in your king being on an attacked square, or, as the official rules put it, emphasis mine:

> The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to the square occupied by the king because they would then leave or place their own king in check. **No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check**.

Moving your king next to his would leave your king in check (the square is attacked by the opponent's king), so you're not allowed to do that.

"Backing up" a king never makes sense; you aren't even allowed to let your king be captured, so what might happen after that capture is always irrelevant.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think of it as if your king gets captured, all your pieces are automatically captured also. So if your king is next to his king and your king is protected, if he captures your king your rook is captured too and cannot capture it back. So those types of moves are considered illegal.

# Answer
> -2 votes
Two kings must always be separated by at least 1 square because 2 kings cannot check one another.

---
Tags: rules, kings
---


# Question
Title: In the endgame KQ vs K, can you premove your way to checkmate?
This is a question concerning online blitz chess.

I'm sure we all have experienced having a completely winning position, but only having a few seconds left on the clock. After one such game I started to wonder: In the ending KQ vs K, is it possible to premove a sequence of moves such that no matter what moves the opponent makes, they will end up check mate?

# Answer
I think with the black king on f7 it's also possible. For example, in the following position:

```

[FEN "8/5k2/3Q4/8/8/3K4/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

this sequence of moves for white checkmates always: Ke4 Kf5 (go to f5 in two moves) Qd7 Kf6 Qh3 Qc8 Qa8 Qh1#

I made this gif to explain why:

In green it is shown where the black king could be (to consider all possibilities). Note that it is important that White's king can reach f5 in two moves (exactly two) because, thanks to the parity, after two moves it is impossible for Black to be in e8 and therefore, Qd7 is safe. Note also that even though 4 is an even number, in 4 moves Black's king could make it, thanks to triangulation.
> 10 votes

# Answer
If the enemy king is cut off at the edge of the board, it is possible to mate him using only premoves. For example:

```

[StartPly "1"]
[FEN "2k5/Q7/8/8/8/8/8/K7 w - - 0 1"]

      1.Ka2 Kd8 2.Ka3 Kc8 3.Ka4 Kd8 4.Ka5 Kc8 5.Ka6 Kd8 6.Qb7 Ke8 7.Kb6 Kd8 8.Qc7+ Ke8 9.Kc6 Kf8 10.Qd7 Kg8 11.Kd6 Kf8 12.Qe7+ Kg8 13.Ke6 Kh8 14.Kf6 (14.Qf7??=) Kg8 15.Qg7#

```

Just make sure you don't stalemate your opponent with 14.Qf7. Note that there is of course a much quicker path to mate, the sequence of moves just shows it is possible to exclusively use premoves.

If the enemy king is not cut off at the edge of the board, I doubt if it is possible to premove the entire sequence. In order to mate him, the quadrant in which the enemy king is located has to be narrowed. And that is the problem: whenever the queen is moved, the king might escape the quadrant.
> 9 votes

# Answer
In some special cases you can "premove" to a forced mate even against a King in the center:

```
8/8/8/8/3k4/7Q/3K4/8 w - - 0 0

1. Qe6! Kc5 2. Kc3! Kb5 3. Qd6! Ka5 4. Qb4+ Ka6 5. Kc4 Ka7 6. Qb5 Ka8
7. Kc5 Ka7 8.Kc6 Ka8 9. Qb7#

```

(Black's only option is 3...Ka4 when 4 Qb4 is already mate. The alternative 1 Qf5!? Kc4 2 Qe5 Kb4(b3) 3 Qd5(+) or 3 Qc3+ might not be quite good enough.)
> 8 votes

# Answer
Just to show it's possible, here is a position, without the opponent king trapped at the edge of the board, where you can premove the entire sequence.

```
[FEN "8/6k1/4Q3/8/8/8/8/K7 w - - 0 1"]

```

Move the king to `g5`, play `Qd7(+)`, and then continue as in Maxwell86's answer.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: endgame, online-chess, online-blitz, elementary-mates, bullet-chess
---


# Question
Title: Reference for good French Defense games?
I want to learn this opening right now, and I was wondering what are some good games that have been played in these two openings. I prefer games in between modern players so I can relate to the game. I also need some kind of commentary on what the problems and advantages with the opening are.

For example, Harikrishnan vs Giri was a good example of French Defense in which black won.

What is the best way to study it ?

# Answer
First, you need to narrow down your scope a bit. The French Defense has a massive amount of theory and you only need to learn a small portion of that to play it competitively.

You'll most commonly face 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3. Here, there are two main choices: 3... Nf6 and 3... Bb4. From an openings database or explorer (here, for example), you can pick the one you prefer. Notice the "Notable Games" section of the interface. These games are usually thematic and will teach you a lot about a variation with careful study. The black players are also more often than not "heroes" of the given opening, and you can look through more of their games.

Starting out, I would avoid only looking at the games of modern players. This tweet by Garry Kasparov illustrates the problem with that nicely, in my opinion. You don't need cutting-edge theory to play the opening well, you need the core ideas. These were fleshed out in the games of classical masters.

There are other lines that you need to learn as well. I commonly face the Exchange French, the Advance French, and the Tarrasch French in tournaments, and sometimes other variations. You need to know a little bit about each of these. The same process should suffice.

Apart from looking at games, I learned a great deal by reading *The Flexible French* by Viktor Moskalenko. The expanded version is available here.
> 6 votes

# Answer
It is a good idea to play games by grandmasters who used the French Defence.

Notable players of the French Defence include Mikhail Botvinnik, Viktor Korchnoi, Aron Nimzowitsch, Tigran Petrosian, Lev Psakhis, Wolfgang Uhlmann and Rafael Vaganian. It should be easy to find annotated games by Botvinnik and Korchnoi, who published annotations of their own games. Uhlmann used the French Defence almost exclusively against 1. e4, and published books about the opening (which are now out of date). Uhlmann published a selection of his best games, *Meine besten Partien*, in German. Annotated games by Nimzowitsch and Petrosian should also be easy to find.

For the younger generation, Wikipedia lists Evgeny Bareev, Alexey Dreev, Mikhail Gurevich, Alexander Khalifman, Smbat Lputian, Alexander Morozevich, Teimour Radjabov, Nigel Short, Gata Kamsky, and Yury Shulman. When you look for annotated games, make sure that they have prose explanations instead of only variations.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Uhlmann's "Winning with the French" is an excellent book. Another is "Mastering the French" by McDonald.
> 1 votes

# Answer
As a longtime player, I've been impressed by Andrew Martin's YouTube videos on the French. Simon Williams's on iChess work well too.

One thing to watch out for is that these can maybe point out the good points, to encourage players just to get started. You also want to see games where the French didn't work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXEjDAacBcA shows Carlsen beating Short in the sort of endgame that can be painful or French players.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SEBkKrJW-8 shows Kasparov taking out Short.

While a previous poster mentioned that it's important to look at variations, you need to decide whether the bad French bishop (light squared) is enough of a hindrance to scare you away from playing the opening.

And most importantly you will want to look at French Exchange games, because people will do that to you, and as you get better, it's sadly a good way for lesser players to make you sweat trying for a win.

This will show you theoretically not-critical games that may show you how to keep play alive if people want to deaden it.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, french-defense
---


# Question
Title: What is the consequence of removing the two-square first move rule?
In this related question I see that en passant and two-square first move for pawns were introduced together between 1200 and 1600. What was the reason for adding these rules? Put another way, has the variant of chess without the two-square first move rule been studied and found to be less interesting or enjoyable?

# Answer
> 4 votes
The purpose of the two space first move rule was to speed up the game, and the (military) theory behind it was that soldiers leaving "camp" and marching to the "battlefield" could march at double "time" (speed) before the actual fighting began.

The one thing that could prevent this was an enemy pawn on his fifth rank (your fourth) adjacent to the marching pawn (soldier). Think of your soldier as being "ambushed" by the enemy *en passant* on the way to taking up his designated position on the battlefield. He never arrives there, even though his marching orders tell him to march two squares in one move.

Not having these rules would make for a slower game.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The game of Indian Chess (a slight variant of traditional chess) is played without the initial two-square pawn move. According to Wikipedia, it lost popularity in the 1960s, but perhaps if you could look for more information and evidence supporting that this variant was "less interesting or enjoyable," if that is the case.

---
Tags: history, pawns
---


# Question
Title: Tool for solving puzzles with multiple defense lines, alternative solutions and playing wrong lines until user resigns
Looking for a tool for designing chess puzzles with an interface to test the user against all reasonable defenses (not just the single main line), to allow alternative solutions (without the usual bother of try again please), and which continues playing after a wrong move with the help of an engine rather than interrupting the chess experience with "wrong move try again".

The idea is to make the practice of solving problems a real chess experience like an analysis session with a trainer or partner. I am interested in this kind of software whether it is free or not, online or to be installed.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Being a programmer, I have created an answer to this burning question of mine. A puzzle designing and solving interface as described in the question is available online at https://www.apronus.com/chess/puzzle/editor.php. Anyone can create their own puzzle and make it public through a hyperlink. Free for amateur non-commercial use only.

A demonstration of this kind of puzzle solving experience is available as a large collection of mate-in-2 puzzles at https://www.apronus.com/chess/puzzles/mate-in-2/

There is a Facebook group dedicated to these interactive puzzles with hundreds of examples: https://www.facebook.com/groups/InteractiveChessPuzzles/

# Answer
> 1 votes
This sounds like just playing the original position against an engine normally, except maybe with a "correct move" message whenever the correct solution moves are played, and "you solved it" at the end?

I "play out" Shredder's puzzles sometimes this way by switching off puzzle mode and backing up a move. But yeah, it's clunky (a lot of extra clicking) and should be easier.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The only tool I know of that would be useful here is Chessbase, but may not be exactly what you want. You can add variations along with training questions at any point in the main line or any sub-variation. This seems to be what you are looking for.

Chessbase Reader may support that as well, but not sure.

---
Tags: software, training
---


# Question
Title: Why wasn't Caruana able to maintain the level he played in Sinquefield Cup - 2014 ?
I recently found out about Caruana's performance in the Sinquefield Cup - 2014. I only started watching chess recently. I was convinced that Carlsen is head and shoulders over everyone else when I started watching two months back. Now I've realized anyone above 2750 is very dangerous. Recently I came to know about Caruana's performance in 2014 and I am wondering why he was not able to maintain that level of performance .

# Answer
> 1 votes
**TL;DR**: Caruana says that his performance depends on 'luck', which can be boiled down to Caruana's effort in the game compared to his opponent's effort. And by effort at this level, he mostly means fighting spirit and opening preparation, but also external factors affecting the players' psychology.

This interview records Caruana's changing fortunes in his own words:

> **Interviewer**: You’ve managed to be the 3rd highest rated playe\[r\] in chess history at your young age. To what do you owe this success?
>
> **Caruana**: I think I was having an extremely good period. I won 40 points in one tournament. It could have gone another way - I could have just had a few good tournaments, but **all my success was basically concentrated on one tournament** and that’s why I (laughs a little) won seven games in a row and my rating went up to 2840… I still wonder why I had that result and some results after it were very good, like the European Club Cup and after the Grand Prix. For some time I was playing extremely strong chess, probably stronger than I deserved (laughs). Maybe I had some luck as well! Because I had the strong period, and for a couple months after that I was struggling. In Wijk aan Zee, Zurich the next year I had like a six-month period where I was struggling to show good results, but for that especially one tournament (Sinquefield Cup 2014) I was unstoppable.

Source: chess24.com, emphasis is mine.

So Caruana says that he put a lot of effort into one tournament, the Sinquefield Cup 2014, but after that it is hard to maintain such a dominant position in chess. From the same interview, Caruana says this about fluctuating performance:

> Let’s say you’re playing an opponent who is 2750. There’s a chance that one day he will play like, let’s say, not 2750 but 2300, 2400 or 2500 – he’ll just have a very bad day. Just a recent example - Nakamura against Ding Liren in the last round of the Sinquefield Cup was just an example of a very strong player having a very bad day, but I think it all balances up. You might have cases where your opponent is playing very poorly, but also cases where your opponent plays just unstoppably and doesn’t give you a chance, or you fall into preparation and lose because your opponent just had a new opening idea. Or the reverse! You win because of your new opening idea. I think in general it balances up, but there are ways to increase your luck just by fighting and never giving up. The more resistance you put up the more chances there are that your opponent will screw up.

---
Tags: psychology
---


title: An unnecessary threat?

text:
# Question
Title: An unnecessary threat?
I found myself in a game with this position. Last Black's move was a Queenside castle, which let him a little bit uncovered. My first spontaneous move idea (which I finally played, because of time trouble and having no really other interesting idea) was to play Rc1, to put pressure on the king on the C column added to the fact that my bishop on f4 makes the move Kb8 impossible (and then c4 etc).

However, this can be easily countered just by playing Bd6.

So, we all know the importance of a threat (which is, like Nimzowistch said, *stronger than the execution*), but do you think it's a good move in this position ? or, knowing that it can be countered, do I had to choose another "more effective" move ? (like I don't know : a4 ?)

Would you have played Rc1 ? If not, what would have been the best move ?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Stockfish thinks `1. Rc1` leads to a even game or maybe a draw. It's undone immediately by `1. ... Ba3`.

Stockfish preferred `1. Nh4` with a 60 centi-pawn advantage to White.

```
[FEN "2kr1b1r/pp3p1p/1q2pp2/3p1b2/3P1B2/1PP2N2/P4PPP/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nh4 Bg6 2.Qf3 Be4 3.Qh5 Rd7 4.Rad1 Rg8 5.c4 Bb4 6.Re3 Qc6 7.Qe2 Bd6 8.Bxd6 Qxd6 9.f3 Bg6 10.c5 Qf4 11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.b4 Qc7 13.b5 Kb8 14.Rb3 b6 15.Qe3 g5 16.Rc1 Qf4

```

The `1. c4` move fares ok at about 40 centi-pawns but by the end any winning chances look like an illusion.

```
[FEN "2kr1b1r/pp3p1p/1q2pp2/3p1b2/3P1B2/1PP2N2/P4PPP/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 1"]

1.c4 dxc4 2.Rc1 Bd6 3.Bxd6 Qxd6 4.bxc4 Rhg8 5.d5 Qf4 6.g3 h5 7.Nd4 h4 8.Nxf5 Qxf5 9.Rc3 exd5 10.cxd5+ Kb8 11.d6 Qd7 12.Rc7 Qxd6 13.Qxd6 Rxd6 14.Rxf7 a6 15.Ree7 b5 16.Kg2 hxg3 17.hxg3 Rgd8 18.Kf3 Rd3+ 19.Kf4 Rd2 20.Rb7+ Ka8 21.Ra7+ Kb8 22.Rxa6 Rxf2+ 23.Ke3 Rg2 24.Rb6+ Kc8 25.Rxb5 Rxa2  (964.21)

```

---
Tags: analysis, tactics, attack
---


# Question
Title: Is there an online PGN editor for Blank Chess?
Blank Chess is a variant where the board starts empty and the first two moves are placing the Kings on your side of the board. You can then either place a piece or move a piece in subsequent turns.

I recorded a game I played with my son in the same notation one would use for CrazyHouse, and would like to record it in a PGN (or BPGN) format to show it to friends.

Does anyone know where I can find such an editor online, or failing that, one that I can download to my Mac?

# Answer
Caissa's PGN Editor claims to be what you want.
> 1 votes

# Answer
How about the lichess.com editor? Here is a link to a board exactly as you describe I believe. Just click and drag any piece to the board. You can also share a URL at every state of the game which is pretty cool.
> 0 votes

# Answer
http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php The "position setup" part of the dual interface allows setting up anything on the board without regard for legal moves. Each change to the board is recorded in memory and then can be exported to an animated GIF file. You can delete some of the positions from the animation sequence to create an exact scenario to fit your needs, just check the ckeckbox "animation sequence".
> 0 votes

# Answer
I think you are looking for something like this:

http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php?w=8&h=8

You can create your own position, load/export PGN/FEN formats.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, notation
---


# Question
Title: Play online live game against a friend with time odds
Is there an online chess site or app that would allow me and a friend to play live games against each other with time odds?

I am somewhere around a low class D player. My friend is somewhere around a high class F player. He consistently loses games against me. I know that what little game I have falls apart under time pressure. So, to even things out a bit, I'd like to be able to play him under time odds.

There is a bonus for a free solution, but I'm very willing to look at subscriber sites/apps (extra bonus if it's an app and it works on iOS and Android).

# Answer
On Lichess there is a button that allows you to give 15 seconds to your opponent. You could use it to just give a bunch of extra minutes to your friend at the start of a game.
> 11 votes

# Answer
On the ICC, you can specify a match request to include two pairs of time controls when you request a match with a specific opponent.

For example, you can enter the command:

match FIZZBANG 30 10 45 20

and you would get a SD 30 d/10 time allowance, while FIZZBANG would be playing at SD 45 d/20.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, time-control, websites, odds
---


title: Time control notation explained?

text:
# Question
Title: Time control notation explained?
Can someone explain this time control notation to me?

> 6SS, 40/120 sd30 d5

# Answer
> 20 votes
That indicates slightly more than just the time control:

1. 6SS indicates a 6-round Swiss system tournament.
2. 40/120 indicates that each side will have 120 minutes to make the first 40 moves of the game.
3. sd30 indicates that after the first 40-move time control is met, each side will have an additional 30 minutes for the remainder of the game ("sd" = sudden death).
4. d5 indicates that there will be a 5-second delay on each move, during which one's clock will not yet have started to tick.

# Answer
> 8 votes
These additional points elaborate on what ETD said in his reply.

* A Swiss Tournament is one in which you are matched against opponents so that the pool of players is differentiated as much as possible in as few rounds as possible. So, in the first round, those in the top half of the pool by rating are each paired against someone from the bottom half. The assumption is that the higher-rated player will win each game. In the 2nd round, the winners of Round 1 play each other, and the losers play each other. As points accumulate, the process continues until, at the end, the players with the best scores play each other in a few (hopefull) decisive matches. The winner has thus had the toughest opposition, while others are quickly sorted into the level at which they will get a succession of fair games. SS tourneys are usually between 4 and 9 rounds, so while each of the 120 players will each only play a maximum of 9 other players, the SS allows a definitive winner to be selected.
* "Sudden Death" means that the first player whose time runs out (i.e. his "flag falls") at the end of that time control instantly loses the game. This is known as "forfeiting on time."
* d5 does mean that there's a delay in the way the timer works. There are several kinds of delay. The most common is the "simple delay", in which the clock counts down the seconds of the delay. If it reaches zero, then the time control allotment starts running down. So, if you had 20 minutes after your last move, and a 5-second delay is in effect, then when the opponent punches the clock, the timer will count down from 5 to 0, and then display 20:00, then 19:59, and so on. If you make a move and punch the clock after 3 seconds (i.e. the delay timer displays 2), one of 2 things may happen: a) your original time of 20:00 is displayed and the opponent's delay timer starts, b) the remainder of the delay is added to your time, and the clock shows 20:02 for your time. The second approach is common on ICC and in many digital clocks. A 3rd method is occasionally used, as Bobby Fischer proposed it: The delay is handled as an increment, so that when your clock is punched it reads 20:05, not 20:00 as it did after your prior move. You get to keep any unused increment. A 4th method is also possible: Your time reads 20:00 when your clock starts, but after you make your move and punch the clock, the increment is added retroactively. So, if you started at 20:00 and took 30 seconds to move and punch the clock, the clock would read 19:30 just before you punched it, and 19:35 just after. The retroactive increment was invented to make sure that players who are low on time won't be able to play indefinitely unless ***all*** of their moves are made in 4 seconds or less. Finally, some controls require that the clock's total never exceed the original time control allotment. Otherwise, a player who played every move in 4 seconds or less would be able to accumulate time indefinitely, and always have more than the time control amount, in some situations, unless this condition were imposed. That's why it was invented.

---
Tags: time-control
---


title: How to play against little kids?

text:
# Question
Title: How to play against little kids?
Say, in an age range of 7-12 years. One of my friends holds the opinion that you should trounce them at every opportunity, so that they can learn from their mistakes. Another says that you should allow them to win sometimes, so they won't lose interest/stay encouraged to play chess. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle. What do you guys think is appropriate in such circumstances?

(Context: I volunteer at a local elementary school to play/teach kids occasionally. Some are highly motivated, others seemed to be forced to be there by their parents.)

# Answer
I think the best approach is what I call **live annotated chess**. In this case you basically play normally but provide live feedback on the student's position and why you are doing the things you are doing. This allows you to understand where the student needs additional help and allows them to learn from you.

This approach also allows you to adjust your play according to student needs. If the student is making a lot of careless errors and doesn't seem too into it, you can tone down the annotation and your game and let them play more for fun. If the student seems really motivated in a given game, you can introduce more challenge by upping your game and your discussion.

You can even do this within a game if you sense the student getting frustrated or bored.

I would also say that not all chess needs to be played by "chess rules" kids at that age get a kick out of manipulating the world around them. Let them make up new games that still teach chess principles but are not so rigid. Let the bishops move like queens, or allow them to win back material for consecutive captures, etc... I don't think these types of things teach bad practice because they let the student experiment with the "world" and understand how it reacts.
> 18 votes

# Answer
I am teaching my 5 year old to play. I also coach soccer. I would never consider "trouncing" him in soccer. Instead, I create lots of little games that capture his attention, and teach specific ball skills (ie red light/green light to learn to speed up and stop with the ball).

I've found the same approach works with Chess. He wins everytime. First, I taught him the moves...I put pieces easily captured to train him to look for opportunity. Then, I taught him to finish, by giving in easily, but forcing him to use the rook and queen to finish me off. And so on. Now we are working on openings. After a month or so, he is mindful of moves that I can retake his piece...so instinctively, he is learning to think ahead.

I think if you break the game down to its components, constantly ratchet up the difficulty for him, but keep the fun in the game, he will play lots, and that is what will lead to a lifetime love of the game.

Thoughts?
> 14 votes

# Answer
I found myself in the same situation more than once. And not only against kids. :)

So I started playing handicap chess. You can play seriously, and if the handicap is well balanced you will have to struggle to equal the game.

Of course you have to find your opponents' level, and give each the right handicap.

In this way you also have a way to record your kids' improvements: if an opponents beats you regularly with a certain handicap, then it's probably time to "level up"...
> 8 votes

# Answer
Everyone, especially little kids, likes to win. So teach them a few easy mates, and let them get them in on you from time to time. The four and two move mates are easy to teach and have the added value of showing some strategy.

**Basic Mate in 4**

```
[fen ""]
 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Qh5 Nf6 4. Qxf7++
```

**Basic Mate in 2**

```
[fen ""]
 1. f3 e5 2. g4 Qh4++
```

**Explain Your Moves**

For playing longer games versus children, it is nice to **explain why** you are making your moves - especially the ones which seem to have to benefit such as developing, or building a pawn structure, or waiting so that a trap is timed better. Don't do it too excessively though, it will get annoying. Usually you can tell if your move confused the kid, or if they are unsure how to respond by it.

**Offer takebacks**

Tell them they are allowed to have 2 takebacks per game. This will let them still feel like they are playing by the rules, but get to have a few second chances. Keep in mind, the goal is to have them legitimately win as much as possible.

**Simple Tips**

Although this is not the best approach for seasoned players, it can be beneficial to tell the kids to make the most "annoying" move possible. What I mean by that is, can they force a knight to move, or block a pawn going forward, or attack the queen, etc. Make as many harassing moves as possible. This can be amusing to the player doing the harassing, and also presents opportunities to win pieces in simple situations.

**Show them an opening**

Go into a little chess history lesson. Perhaps show them the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer" so that they will get interested in at least one player. Then you can transition into other famous players such as tal, Kasparov, etc. When you teach them about a famous player, show them one of their more commonly used openings. Here is one that Fischer played a lot (the first 5 moves were his commonly played opening - I thought I would include a whole game as an example):

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8.
c3 O-O 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 Qc7 12. Nbd2 Bd7 13. Nf1 Rfe8 14. Ne3 g6
15. dxe5 dxe5 16. Nh2 Rad8 17. Qf3 Be6 18. Nhg4 Nxg4 19. hxg4 Qc6 20. g5 Nc4
21. Ng4 Bxg4 22. Qxg4 Nb6 23. g3 c4 24. Kg2 Nd7 25. Rh1 Nf8 26. b4 Qe6 27.
Qe2 a5 28. bxa5 Qa6 29. Be3 Qxa5 30. a4 Ra8 31. axb5 Qxb5 32. Rhb1 Qc6 33.
Rb6 Qc7 34. Rba6 Rxa6 35. Rxa6 Rc8 36. Qg4 Ne6 37. Ba4 Rb8 38. Rc6 Qd8 39.
Rxe6 Qc8 40. Bd7 resign
```

**Show them some chess puzzles**

Get out a book, or an online resource (chess.com has a daily puzzle), etc., and set up some mate in one positions, or two or three depending on skill level, and go through those. There are so many, you can give out unique ones to each kid. Finding a mate is always fun, and will teach them to look for moves, or to examine moves which do not work since those puzzles, for the most part, only have one acceptable move set. Here is a smothered mate:

```

[fen "4r2k/1p4pp/1qn4N/2bQ4/8/1P6/5PPP/2R3K1 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

I could not seem to get the move list to work in this example, the solution, as I am sure you are aware is: Qg8+ Rxg8 Nf7++.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The way I like to play against kids or new players is to communicate every few moves on the ideas that I might have - so that they can "find" ways to defend against it and allow them take backs if they want to.

Basically to ensure that I don't turn them off from the game, I try to keep things simple initially, introduce new rules (like en passant) slowly and ensure that they are comfortable and not getting bored/
> 5 votes

# Answer
It's best for them to play people who are at the same level as them, or slightly better. If you can trounce them, you're not really the right opponent for them. Can't they just play each other?
> 4 votes

# Answer
My advice is not to play them at all, instead pair them with other kids of approximately equal skills. You can go over their games afterwards and coach them through their mistakes. If you must play with them you can set up tactical positions and make it a game about finding the right move. Also a good idea is to play a game where the kid has to voice his thought on why he is doing a move, and you do likewise, try to find faults in his reasoning.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I like thinking children will be interested in playing chess by themselves. If I were you, I let them to win sometimes to hope they play at home in the future. In that case, they could learn with software or internet by themselves.

Moreover, in several cases, you can try to explain them how their moves are bad to learn from their mistakes.

I think you can mix two solutions.

Handicap chess as shuuchan proposed can be interesting to maintain equal chance to win bewteen children and you.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I play good chess moves without thinking too hard. If I am threatening something I would say "Be careful". I strongly emphasize kids to ask the basic question after my moves: "What is my opponent threatening?" to the point it's second nature. I wouldn't play silly moves.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Odds chess seems like it could be helpful. Even giving a queen and rook, or a queen. And as they get better, offer them shorter and shorter odds. At the start it's important to learn just to hold on to pieces, and there's too much to keep track of otherwise.
> 0 votes

# Answer
(I teach chess in an afterschool program at a variety of schools.)

I despise playing "easy" against a kid.... it's lying to them.

Whatever handicap I give them (material or time) I explain why I do it that way and that that is the ONLY advantage they get, that I'm going to now play my hardest against them. And that beating me means they get to "level-up" to a smaller handicap.

I avoid playing kids when I can, but sometimes a class has an odd number of kids and no one wants to play as a team.

Or some little overdeveloped ego has their heart set on playing the teacher. Actually had kids try to 4-move me more than once :-) OTOH there was that 1800ish 2nd-grader no one warned me about. But all the other kids knew what was about to happen. Ouch.

Having them play out won endgames against you is often a better alternative.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: etiquette
---


# Question
Title: How to complete a checkmate in this game?
I have seen the ending position of this game in between Nakamura and Harikrishna. I sense a checkmate is close, but can't figure out what white should do after Qxg7. Please tell me how to complete the checkmate.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1744377

# Answer
After 33... Qxg7, 34. Qxg7 is just mate in one. The queen is protected by the knight on h5. Black *cannot* avoid short-term mate at all, because Qxh7# is also a threat. He can stave it off with some desperate checks by the queen, e.g. 33... Qa1+ 34. Kh2 Qh1+ 35. Kxh1 but it is mate next move.

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Pentala Harikrishna"]
[Black "Hikaru Nakamura"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5 Nd7 4. O-O a6 5. Bd3 Ngf6 6. c3 b5 7. Bc2 Bb7 8. Re1 e5 9. d4 Be7 10. Nbd2 O-O 11. Nf1 Re8 12. Ng3 Bf8 13. d5 g6 14. b3 Nb6 15. Rb1 c4 16. bxc4 Nc4 17. a4 Qc7 18. axb5 axb5 19. Rb5 Na3 20. Rb3 Nc2 21. Qc2 Nd7 22. Be3 Ba6 23. Ra3 Bb5 24. Rea1 Ra3 25. Ra3 Rb8 26. Ra7 Qc8 27. h3 Nb6 28. Qc1 Nc4 29. Bh6 Qc5 30. Nh5 Bg7 31. Bg7 Qa7 32. Qh6 f5 33. Ng5 Qxg7 34. Qxg7#

```
> 4 votes

---
Tags: checkmate
---


# Question
Title: Are there any websites that allow standard correspondence chess time controls?
I noticed that most websites that allow correspondence chess have time controls that are per move. I believe that historically correspondence chess was played with x days per y moves, which allows one to distribute time where it is needed most, while not making games excessively lengthy, and taking into account the length of a game. As far as I know, official international correspondence chess tournaments are still played this way.

Are there any free online websites that allow this, even if only to set up opponents who can play via e-mail (maintaining a ratings system)? If there are no free sites, what are the non-free options?

An answer to this question Best websites for correspondence chess? listed 5 sites, but I checked all of those and none of them seem to allow standard time controls.

# Answer
http://ChessTempo.com offers a wide choice of correspondence time controls including a fixed number of days per game, or increment after a move. Just check it out.
> 5 votes

# Answer
ICCF is a non-free site that offers 'standard' correspondence chess. I believe they have free 'friendly' (non-rated) matches. Typical fees for 7 player tournaments are around $11USD last time I checked.

Scheming Mind offers free correspondence chess. I admit it has been a while since I last played there. I believe it is still active.
> 5 votes

# Answer
The old IECG (http://www.iecg.org) moved its operations to the LSS server. It's pretty good and is free.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The chessworld website is a subscription site (with a free introductory period) that offers a specific time control which combines two constraints:

1. Each set of 10 moves must be completed in 50 days (this counter is then reset)
2. Each move must be completed within 10 days from the prior move

So, you can distribute your time over a 50 day period fairly flexibly, up to 10 days between moves.

I noted that a previous poster mentioned that ChessTempo, the strong tactics puzzle website, is now offering correspondence (and live) game serving. When I checked their seek graph to see what time controls people were looking for a partner for, I only found 1 ad posted, and that was only for a SD 12-hour game. Their website indicates that this funtionality is only in Beta release, as well. So, you may have to wait awhile for a longer-duration game ad to get a response. It may even be worth coming back to their site later on, after they have gathered more of a following.

On the plus side, their game serving is free.

Another free correspondence chess server is the Free Internet Chess Games Server. They have time controls of:

* 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves
* 30 days + 1 day / move

These should offer the kind of time flexibility you're looking for.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I play on http://www.schemingmind.com which allows you to play with time limits such as

* entire game in 10 days + 1 day per move
* entire game in 30 days + 1 day per move
* entire game in 30 days + 3 days per move
> 2 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, time-control, websites, correspondence-chess
---


# Question
Title: In an opening tree on ChessBase, how can we fix the statistics so that transpositions are not taken into account in the total number of games?
In an opening tree (also called "opening explorer" or "openings book") on ChessBase 12, here are the statistics that we get after 1. Nf3 c5 :

So it seems that after 1. Nf3 c5 White will play 2. e4 93% of the time.
It is obvious that these statistics are nonsense.
Everyone knows that after 1. Nf3 c5 White will play 2. c4 50% of the time, 2. g3 30% of the time, and 2. e4 only 10% of the time.
White players who play 1. Nf3 are generally not very interested to get into an Open Sicilian...
"2. e4 464238" does not mean "in this position White has played the move 2. e4 464238 times", it just means "the position reached after the move 2. e4 has been reached 464238 times by different move orders".
How can we resolve this problem?
It should not be physically impossible, since most other opening trees do not have this issue (ChessOK's opening tree, 365Chess' opening explorer and FICS' opening explorer do not have this problem).

When we do a right click, and then click on "Properties", this window pops up:

But unfortunately checking or unchecking the box "Unplayed transpositions" does not seem to do anything.

# Answer
Unfortunately, many of the statistical functions of the Opening Book feature in ChessBase have been unreliable in every version I've owned.

For example, after the Caro-Kann line 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Be2 Nd7 6. O-O h6 7. Nbd2 Ne7 8. Nb3 Qc7 9. Bd2, the opening book PowerBook 2013 shows this table:

```
Move       N     %    Av  Perf
          15  76.7  2409  2283

```

---

```
9...Bh7    8  56.3  2433  2494
9...g5     6  83.3  2405  2233
9...Nc8    4  62.5  2393  2335
9...a5     2  50.0  2561  2564
9...Be4    1 100.0  2414  2315

```

Well, first off, you'll notice that the number of games in the total (15) has no relation to the number of games in each variation given (a total of 21).

Second, if you do some simple arithmetic, you can work out that the average White win percentage is actually 66.7%, not 76.7%, as reported.

Well, then, let's ignore the overall position total statistics, and move on to examining a line item. Let's look at the 9...Bh7 line, which this table says was derived from 8 games, with a White winning percentage of 56.3%

If you make that move, you get a new table. Since we're now at the new position, the position statistics at the top of the new table should read the same as those from the 9...Bh7 detail line of the parent table from the prior position, right?

Here's what they *actually* say:

```
Move       N     %    Av  Perf
           8  56.3  2545  2484

```

---

Not bad, right? The first two stats agree... but the Average ELO and Performance ELO numbers are off by 100 ELO in the 1st stat, and 10 ELO in the 2nd.

And here's the full table for the new position

```
Move       N     %    Av  Perf
           8  56.3  2545  2484

```

---

```
10.a4      4  75.0  2455  2513
10.Bb4     4  62.5  2557  2537
10.Rc1     2  50.0  2650  2591

```

Again, the total # of games is unrelated to the # of games in each of the continuations. And this time, the White winning percentage works out to 65%, not 56.3%. And the position's Performance ELO is clearly not the average of the continuations' Performance ELO. It should be 2538, an error of 50 ELO.

I picked a ready example from a game I was looking at a few minutes ago, but any game will do to demonstrate this problem. I frequently find that when I try to choose a move from an apparently winning continuation that the the detail data from the resulting position just doesn't support the apparently "winning" statistic. In some cases, it could say White has as much as a 60% winning percentage for the continuation, and then in the next position none of the further continuations has a percentage higher than 50%. Simply put, it's nonsensical.

Now, here's where it gets interesting: I have set my Reference Database as the database of games that was supplied with PowerBook 2013 (PowerGames 2013). PowerBook 2013 was generated by ChessBase using **all** of the games from PowerGames 2013, and **only** those games.

I can now open the Reference window pane, and it will look up the statistics from the games in that database. They should be identical to the stats shown in the Opening Book pane, but they're not.

In fact, the Reference statistics for the 2nd position (after 9...Bh7) show the following:

```
10.Bb4     4  62.5
10.a4      2  50.0
10.Rc1     2  50.0

```

*This* is where the total statistics in PowerBook 2013 are coming from! The total number of games = 8 (correct), and the average performance = 56.25% (correct)!

In fact, in the PowerBook 2013 continuation stats there appear to be 2 extra games where 10.a4 was played (and which White apparently won), but they don't appear in the Reference database stats at all, and they aren't factored into the PowerBook 2013 totals stats.

It doesn't really matter whether this is a problem inherent in the commercially-sold books from ChessBase, or in how the ChessBase database software uses/calculates/displays the statistics. Simply put, there's a defect here that's been present since at least ChessBase 6.0, and hasn't been fixed at late as Version 11 (the one I'm using). Just watch out for it when you try to use an opening book to pick a line based on its purported winning percentage. The best approach is to use the Reference Pane, or at least double-check the continuations for a couple of further moves.

Personally, I now use the Reference window pane for this purpose, and put up with the slight lag required to update the stats for every new position in the game. I use an AMD Quad processor at 2.9 GHz, so if you have something less powerful, you might feel the pinch a little more.

I'm not excessively critical of the ChessBase software in general; I use many of the features quite effectively. But a few of them have known faults you should know how to work around.

Another example: Try using a position search in a database; ignore the results. Then, *edit* the position within the search filter (add, move, delete pieces, whatever), make a note of the new position you're now searching for, and run the search again. Save the resulting list of games. Now, reset the search filter completely (I suggest closing and reopening the database as well). Finally, set up the (altered) search position again from scratch, and run the search a 3rd time. The results from the 2nd (edited position) and 3rd (fresh position) searches should match. They frequently **do not**. I've noted many cases where the fresh search filter returned many more games than the edited search filter. I have no explanation for this, but I no longer edit the position in the search filter. I always create a fresh position (usually by copying and pasting from a game window I set up for the purpose).

Hope this is helpful!
> 2 votes

# Answer
You can get this information from the Reference tab, rather than the Openings Book tab. (Of course the stats will correspond exactly only if your openings book was made from your reference database.)
> 1 votes

# Answer
We do not know the exact format for Chessbase books, and it is entirely possible that what I'm about to say is not true in this case.

The open standard book formats that I know of (Crafty, Pro Deo, Polyglot) represent chess positions as a 64-bit Zobrist hash. You can google how one of these works if you want to, it's beyond the scope of this answer. This is likely the same for Chessbase books.

These hashes are designed so that the key for 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 is *identical* to the key for 1.Nf3 c5 2. e4. This is useful for covering transpositions like this one. However, it means that it cannot distinguish between lines, resulting in there being no way of removing these transpositions.

TL;DR I suspect this is impossible because of technical restrictions in the Chessbase book format.
> 1 votes

# Answer
You can also create an opening key for the games, and arrange it the way you like. If you highlight a node in the key, and press 'S', you can see the statistics.
> 0 votes

# Answer
One solution that I have developed for this issue is that you can go to the first node. Now you take the game list and separate it. Then you use a tree on this to go to the second node. Etc. In the end you will end up with a list of games with the exact move order you are interested in.

I know it is cumbersome and that an automatic solution would be great, (like a switch you could flip in the tree to have it either way) but just thought I would throw this out there as a possibility if it's only a few lines you need exact move orders for.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, software, statistics, database, chessbase
---


# Question
Title: Time Control for Bullet, Blitz and Standard
Does anyone know the function which dictates which three of these time-control categories any particular game would fall under? For example, I know that a 3 0 is the quickest blitz game that can be played but I would be unsure whether or not a 2 3 (2 minutes on each persons clock with 3 second increments added) would be blitz or bullet. I'm assuming there is a fairly simplistic formula I could plug these metrics into for a definitive answer but I have yet to stumble upon it.

Thanks ^\_^

# Answer
> 4 votes
There is no such globally accepted formula. Time controls are defined only by their formal definitions (as unhelpful as that sounds). Any further descriptive language, like "blitz" or "lightning" or "bullet", while they carry certain conventional connotations, do not have objective criteria. However, certain organizations may define these terms concretely within their own domains.

---

## USCF

The USCF defines three time-control zones: *Regular*, *Quick*, and *Blitz*. Different sets of time controls fall into one (or more--it is possible for a game to count as *both* Regular and Quick, in which case the player's ratings in both categories are affected) of these categories. Determining the category is simple: calculate the \[estimated\] *total playing time* (`TPT_U`) as:

```
TPT_U = Minutes + SecondsPerIncrement

```

The `TPT_U` is then slotted into a zone as follows:

```
TPT_U > 65: Regular
30 ≤ TPT_U ≤ 65: Regular AND Quick
10 < TPT_U < 30: Quick
5 ≤ TPT_U ≤ 10: Blitz

```

---

## FIDE

FIDE defines (as far as I can tell) two time-control zones beyond the standard FIDE time control: *Rapid* and *Blitz*. To determine which of these zones a time control falls within, calculate the \[estimated\] *total playing time* (`TPT_F`) as:

```
TPT_F = Minutes + SecondsPerIncrement

```

The `TPT_F` is then slotted into a zone as follows:

```
10 < TPT_F < 60: Rapid
TPT_F ≤ 10: Blitz

```

---

## CHESS.COM

Chess.com defines three time-control zones: *Standard*, *Blitz*, and *Bullet*. To determine which of these zones a time control falls within, calculate the \[estimated\] *total playing time* in minutes (`TPT_C`) as:

```
TPT_C = Minutes + 2/3*SecondsPerIncrement

```

This assumes a forty-move game and is derived from the following expression (multiply the increment in seconds by forty, then convert to minutes):

```
TPT_C = Minutes + (40 * SecondsPerIncrement / 60)

```

The `TPT_C` is then slotted into a zone as follows\*:

```
15 ≤ TPT_C: Standard
3 ≤ TPT_C < 15: Blitz
TPT_C < 3: Bullet

```

\*I've had to extrapolate here, as the definition actually appears to leave a gap between 14 and 15 minutes. I've filled this gap in the manner I considered most likely to be accurate.

---

## Examples

```
Base | Incr | TPT_U | TPT_F | TPT_C | USCF  | FIDE  | CHESS.COM
-----|------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------
 2   | 1    | 3     | 3     | 2.667 | N/A   | Blitz | Bullet
 3   | 0    | 3     | 3     | 3     | N/A   | Blitz | Blitz
 3   | 2    | 5     | 5     | 4.333 | Blitz | Blitz | Blitz
 5   | 0    | 5     | 5     | 5     | Blitz | Blitz | Blitz
 10  | 0    | 10    | 10    | 10    | Blitz | Blitz | Blitz
 10  | 1    | 11    | 11    | 10.67 | Quick | Rapid | Blitz
 14  | 3    | 17    | 17    | 16    | Quick | Rapid | Standard

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
I do not think that there is a simple formula. It is similar to the paradox between defining heaps of sand or grains of sand. It is difficult to draw the line precisely. If a formula is necessary, I would define it by how much time is used. Assuming that the barriers between blitz and bullet(lightning) is 3 0. A time control can be written as (x,y), for example, (3,0) is the quickest time control for blitz. Let F(x,y)=2x+(4/3)y. The 4/3 was created by the expected time used in a game that last 40 moves(supposedly the average length of a game). F(2,3)=2(2)+(4/3)(3)=4+4=8 Therefore, (2,3) is blitz because it is greater than the boundary defined by F(3,0)=2(3)+0=6 The same can be done for standard chess, but a boundary must be specified.

# Answer
> 0 votes
As if this weren't confusing enough, on ICC there are ratings for

* bullet
* blitz
* standard
* 1-minute
* 3-minute
* 5-minute
* 15-minute
* 25-minute

To make matters worse, a game with any of the time controls of 5 minutes or greater can be either in that TC category, or simply a Standard TC game.

So, this seems to be a matter of personal taste at a number of the websites, rather than a case of adhering to FIDE, USCF or any other rules.

By the way, there's also allowable variation in the USCF time controls definitions of regular time controls, but the basic criteria are these (for regular rated games):

1. The duration of the first time-control must be at least 30 minutes for each player.(However, see (3) below for an exception.)
2. If a non-sudden death control is used, the rate of play must be equal to or slower than an average of 60 moves per hour.
3. Rule 5Fa is an option that allows the TD to shorten the basic time control in minutes by the delay in seconds for games using a digital clock with delay. When this option is mandated, the initial control, not the shortened control will govern under which system the event is rated. A G/30 ( 5 second delay) with the control shortened to G/25 for the games using a delay will still be rated in the regular system.
4. Any secondary controls must be at least 30 minutes.

For FIDE, this is the information I use (a summary taken from USCF reference materials):

1.0 Rate of Play

For a game to be rated each player must have a minimum of two hours in which to complete all the moves, *assuming the game lasts 60 moves*. Examples of ways this can be achieved follow.

a. The rate of play must not exceed 23 moves per hour at any stage.

b. All the moves in two hours.

c. 40 moves in two hours followed by all the moves in 30 minutes.

d. All the moves in 100 minutes initially, but each time a player makes a move an additional 30 seconds is added to the clock time.

Note that these are minimum conditions; any time control system that a TD implements that is more generous than these conditions require automatically satisfies the regular rating criteria.

---
Tags: time-control
---