title: Blunders due to position change

text:
# Question
Title: Blunders due to position change
I sometimes commit strange and embarrassing blunders when I fail to notice that my opponent's move has changed the nature of the position. For example, recently I was playing White with the following winning position:

```
r1b1q1r1/p1Qn2k1/2pB3p/3pN1p1/3P4/4P3/P4PPP/RR4K1 w - - 0 24

```

After seven seconds of thought, I played 24.Qxc6, and my opponent responded 24...Nb6. I am mortified to say that after 13 more seconds of thought (if that's the word for it) I played 25.Qxa8?? (missing a nice win with 25.Rxb6, but every reasonable move wins).

I suppose the psychology behind my idiotic error was based on some sort of residual memory that (a) the rook on a8 was once undefended, and (b) the knight on d7 was once pinned. Am I the only person who experiences such catastrophic oversights?

# Answer
> 7 votes
This is a standard and common type of mistake. It can take this form of not realizing the impact of the move made. Another form is when you think you are still protecting something even after you move your piece away.

The final step before I move is always safety check. Spend a few seconds asking whether the move is safe. This help me a lot but I still make these error sometimes alas.

---
Tags: blunder
---


# Question
Title: USCF: Does the arbiter have the duty to write the moves of the players if they are not recording their moves? Or is that not allowed?
***In general, the players have to write their moves. However, there are some situations when they are allowed to skip this obligation. In those situations, does an USCF arbiter have the duty to write the moves of the players if they are not recording their moves? Or is that not allowed?***

Here is the link of the USCF chess rules: USCF rules of chess

FIDE rules are here: FIDE rules of chess

***USCF and FIDE rules are not 100% equal.***

Here is one USCF example when the players do not have to write their moves.

What does FIDE require from their arbiters? Please cite the rule.

***From a practical perspective, it is difficult or maybe impossible to write all the moves of the players. But also is an ethical question, if the arbiter writes the moves that process can be used to claim a draw. It can be seen as the arbiter is helping a player. On the other side, if the arbiter has the obligation, it would be negligence to not write the moves. In my perspective, the arbiter should not write the moves. What USCF rule would apply for this situation? What FIDE rule touch this matter? What is your vision, experience, and knowledge?***

# Answer
> 3 votes
The FIDE position starts with occasions when the player does not have to write the moves. There are two such occasions:

1. When disability, religious belief or ignorance (beginners cannot be expected to know how to write the moves) prevent a player from writing the moves. In this case the player can have an "assistant" (may be a friend, may be someone helping the arbiter) write the moves down for them. Here is what the rules say:

> 8.1.6 If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to record the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way. This adjustment of the clock shall not apply to a player with a disability.

If no such "assistant" can be found then the moves will just not be written down for the player. The arbiter is not going to suspend their duties to sit down and record the moves.

2. In cases where there is an intermediate time control with either no increment or increment of less than 30 seconds. This almost never happens in the modern age. Occasionally there will be a top level tournament with 60 moves in 2 hours, no increment, then 1 hour with a 30 second increment to finish the game. The lack of an increment is supposed to make the game more exciting for spectators.

Here the rules say this:

> 8.4 If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock at some stage in a period and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, then for the remainder of the period he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1.1.
>
> 8.5.1 If neither player keeps score under Article 8.4, the arbiter or an assistant should try to be present and keep score. In this case, immediately after a flag has fallen the arbiter shall stop the chessclock. Then both players shall update their scoresheets, using the arbiter’s or the opponent’s scoresheet

So, in this case the arbiter or an assistant should "try" to be present and keep score but it is not a requirement. Tournaments where this might occur are usually elite tournament with digital boards recording the moves. Realistically the arbiter should be watching as the time pressure is more likely to generate events which require their intervention but writing the moves down is pretty much a waste of time for the arbiter.

The USCF rules are similar, just expressed differently. Here is what they say:

> **15A1. Players unable to keep score**.
> a. Players determined by the director to be unable to keep score due to physical handicaps may have assistance in scorekeeping as described in 35F, Rules for visually impaired and disabled players, and should be excused from scorekeeping if such assistance is unavailable.
> b. Players determined by the director to be unable to keep score for religious reasons may be excused from scorekeeping or permitted to have assistance as in 35F, Rules for visually impaired and disabled players, at the director’s discretion.
> c. Beginners who have not learned to keep score may be excused from scorekeeping, at the director’s discretion.

So, as in the case of the FIDE rules the player who cannot for whatever reason keep score can have an assistant to do this for them.

> **15B. Scorekeeping in time pressure, non-sudden death time control**. If either player has less than five minutes remaining in a non-sudden death time control and does not have additional time (increment) of 30 seconds or more added with each move, both players are excused from the obligation to keep score until the end of the time control period. Doing so, however, may make it impossible to claim a draw by triple occurrence of position (14C) or the 50-move rule (14F) or a win on time forfeit (13C). Scorekeeping by both players must resume with the start of the next time control period, and missing moves should be filled in (15F).

So, no mention of either arbiter or assistant recording the moves for the players. There then follows several sections on players bringing their scoresheets up to date when the time control is reached all with no mention of a master scoresheet maintained by the arbiter. Clearly the arbiter is not expected (nor allowed) to record the moves on the players' behalf.

In general the arbiter is not required to record the moves for the players at any stage of the game for either USCF or FIDE. For FIDE the arbiter could consider writing the moves in the rare case of a tournament with an intermediate time control with no (or short) increment but is under no obligation. In elite tournaments with a chief arbiter, one or more deputy chief arbiters and several ordinary arbiters it might make sense for one of the lower arbiters to be appointed to this task.

If there is only one arbiter and several games going on then it makes no sense for the arbiter to sit down at one board and record the moves. They are supposed to be observing *all* the games. If there is only one game left and neither player is recording then it may make sense.

---
Tags: rules, fide, uscf, arbiters
---


# Question
Title: USCF: Should the arbiter correct illegal moves without a player claim?
Should an USCF arbiter correct illegal moves without a player claim?

Here is the USCF link: USCF rules of chess

Here is the FIDE link: FIDE rules of chess

USCF and FIDE rules are NOT 100% equal.

What does FIDE require from their arbiters?

Please cite the rule.

***My perspective is the following:***

* According to USCF rules, **if players are in time pressure**,
the arbiter cannot correct illegal moves without a player claim. Time pressure in USCF is defined as *"a situation where either player has
less than five minutes left in a time control and the time control
does not include an increment or delay of 30 seconds or more."*
* According to USCF rules, **if players are NOT in time pressure**, the arbiter can or cannot correct illegal moves without a player claim, but the
arbiter needs to use the same criteria in all the tournament games.
The arbiter does not need to announce in advance which preference
he/she will use. I would prefer, but it is not mandatory, to not
correct illegal moves without a player claim in any circumstance
because just one criteria would be used.

***It seems that these are the FIDE rules related to this question:***

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes, you're correct about USCF rules. Rule 11D1 says the director may not correct illegal moves in time pressure. Outside of time pressure the director has the option of using 11H and correcting illegal moves or 11H1 and not correcting them, but cannot switch between the two.

I would also point to rule 21D which lists the ways the director may intervene in a game:

> **21D. Intervening in games.**
> The director’s intervention in a chess game shall generally be limited to the following:
> ...
> **21D2. Correcting illegal moves observed.**
> Correcting any illegal moves observed, unless time pressure exists (11D1) or Variation 11H1 is used (the director does not correct illegal moves unless asked by a player).

As you can see, 21D2 lists correcting illegal moves as one of the limited ways the director may intervene in a game (unless an exception applies).

As far as FIDE rules go, I see nothing prohibiting an arbiter from correcting an illegal move. Rule 7.5.1 says in part:

> If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated.

Rule 12.1 says

> The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are observed

which may indicate a duty to do so, but I'm less confident in that. Rule A.4.2 explicitly says the arbiter should intervene if they see an illegal move, but that rule only applies in rapid games. This might indicate that there isn't a duty to do so outside rapid games (why would they spell out that duty here, but not in the main rules, if it applies to both?)

# Answer
> 3 votes
> Should an USCF arbiter correct illegal moves without a player claim?
> What does FIDE require from their arbiters?

Under the FIDE Laws arbiters do not *correct* illegal moves (except in one special case) but they do flag them, require the player to correct them and punish the player.

In standard time control chess:

> 7.5.1 An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.

This basically says that if the arbiter knows an illegal move has been made, whether spotted by the arbiter, flagged by one of the players or even by a spectator to the arbiter, then the arbiter must act, require the move to be corrected to a legal one and punish the player.

The definition of "illegal move" is also very broad. It includes pieces moving in a way other than specified by the rules, moves that fail to get the king out of check or put the king into check, but also includes these:

> 7.5.2 If the player has moved a pawn to the furthest distant rank, pressed the clock, but not replaced the pawn with a new piece, the move is illegal. The pawn shall be replaced by a queen of the same colour as the pawn.

Only in this case does the arbiter *correct* the move played

and

> 7.5.3 If the player presses the clock without making a move, it shall be considered and penalized as if an illegal move.

and

> 7.5.4 If a player uses two hands to make a single move (for example in case of castling, capturing or promotion) and pressed the clock, it shall be considered and penalized as if an illegal move.

For blitz and rapid the rules are different, partly because the moves are not recorded and partly because a sequence of moves can be made very quickly making intervention difficult.

> A.4.2 If the arbiter observes an action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4, he shall act according to Article 7.5.5, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue. Once the opponent has made his next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without intervention of the arbiter.

So, the arbiter may only intervene if no more moves have been played. If no more moves have been played then the arbiter *should* intervene but is not at fault if they are too slow or miss the move.

Of course where illegal moves are made and not corrected this leaves the possibility of illegal positions arising which are difficult or impossible to correct. Hence the next rule for rapid and blitz:

> A.4.4 If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting position, he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if an illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn.

---
Tags: rules, fide, illegal-move, uscf, arbiters
---


# Question
Title: Do you lose/gain rating if you withdraw in the middle of an OTB tournament?
Magnus just withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup. Does that affect his rating at the end of the tournament? Will he gain or lose rating based on at the time he left the tournament in the next fide update?

Side question - Does that also mean that Nepo's and Aronian's results will be converted as win (without rating changes) because otherwise it will be unfair in a round-robin situation?

# Answer
> 15 votes
The simple rule is that FIDE rates games where at least one move has been made and the FIDE Laws of Chess applied. You can read the full rules here. That means that his next FIDE rating will be based on the games he has played so far this month plus any more he might play. The only way you can gain or lose rating points is by playing FIDE rated chess.

> Does that also mean that Nepo's and Aronian's results will be converted as win(without rating changes) because otherwise it will be unfair in a round-robin situation?

This is covered in the FIDE Tournament Rules:

> **6.6 Round robins**
> (1) Each player has entered into a contract to play throughout the tournament.
> (2) When a player withdraws or is expelled from a tournament, the effect shall be as follows:
>
> 1. If a player has completed less than 50 % of his games, the results shall remain in the tournament table (for rating and historical purposes), but they shall not be counted in the final standings. The unplayed games of the player are indicated by (-) in the tournament table and those of his opponents by (+). If neither player is present this will be indicated by two (-).
> 2. If a player has completed at least 50 % of his games, the results shall remain in the tournament table and shall be counted in the final standings. The unplayed games of the player are shown as above.

So, completed games will be rated. If Carlsen has completed 50% of his games then his remaining opponents will have their results against him recorded as wins for the tournament but not rated, since no moves were played. In effect he has defaulted his remaining games.

# Answer
> 4 votes
To answer your side question, the competitors who faced Magnus already will have their results annulled (but still count for rating points), and the competitors who haven't faced Magnus yet will get a bye. Effectively this is now a "9 player tournament" where all the matchups with Magnus are now treated as byes.

Source: Saint Louis Chess Club Executive Director Tony Rich Interview on Day 4

Nepo benefits since his round 1 loss against Carlsen is erased, while Niemann is hindered since his surprise win against Carlsen is also erased. Aronian drew against Magnus so he neither gains nor loses.

Caruana interview: "Ian is obviously the biggest beneficiary in terms of the tournament"

---
Tags: rules, fide, rating, tournament, round-robin
---


# Question
Title: What can you do to slow/stop the decline in chess ability with age?
Prompted by Hauke's question about papers on the influence of aging on chess. Those answers demonstrated that decline sets in sometime in the 40's and starts getting steeper in the 50's. There appeared to be no research on what it is about getting older that makes players weaker chess players. What is it about getting older that does that and so what can we do to slow down the process?

# Answer
As a 66 year-old this has particular relevance for me. First, some anecdotal evidence of what I have observed in other players.

First, the case of a player I first met in the late 90's when he was in his 50's and rated about 2200. By the early to mid teens when I was arbiting tournaments he was playing in he was down to about 2050 or lower. I noticed that tactically he was still very sharp but his energy was down. One game in particular stood out. He reached a critical position where a pawn break had to be calculated, after his opponent's move changed the dynamics, as a way to achieve an advantage. The position was complicated and would take some time to calculate out but he had plenty of time on the clock. I settled down to try and calculate myself what would happen while waiting for him to do the same. To my surprise after about 20 seconds he flashed out a nothing, waiting, move. H eventually reached a pawn up queen and pawns endgame, overpressed and lost to a lower rated but much younger opponent, one with the patience and stamina to do the hard work.

Second case, the oldest player in my club, an 86 year-old who I have known for more than 50 years since we both played for the same team in another club. At his peak he was about 2100 strength and now he is down to about 1800. He has type 2 diabetes and crippling arthritis in his knees. As well as many friendly quick games I have played several serious standard time control games against him. I know the best time to play him is in the last round of a weekend tournament. Sure, I will be tired but he much more so and I am pretty much guaranteed at least a draw and should really win.

Talking to him, he takes pain killers for his arthritis and they dull his mind at the same time as they dull the pain but the pain also dulls his mind. His solution is to take the painkillers long enough before the game for the brain fog to wear off before the painkilling effects do.

In both cases what is going on is clear. The brain is an integral part of the body. When the body starts to deteriorate so does the mind. What affects the body also affects the brain. *Mens sana in corpore sano* (a healthy mind in a healthy body), as the old Latin saying goes.

Now for some related research. I found this YouTube video by an Australian doctor, Paul Mason, whose main interests lie in sports physiology and nutrition. After the main talk, given to a Low Carbohydrate conference, he discusses with a South African professor of sports medicine. This discussion is also very interesting. Although the main topic is dementia and nutrition, as he says, decline in brain function starts long before dementia starts to manifest.

Here is a summary of the main points of the video.

1. Dementia is believed to be the result of beta amyloid plaques in the brain
2. Healthy beta amyloids are crucial to the proper function of the brain
3. Plaquing of the beta amyloids is caused by glycation and oxidation
4. Gycation is the process of damage due to excess levels of glucose and particularly fructose in the blood
5. Oxidation is primarily the effect of polyunsaturated fats, particularly seed oils.
6. Despite being about 5% of the body weight the brain burns 20% of the body's energy and will prefer ketones to glucose. When it burns glucose it depends on insulin.
7. The body will only manufacture ketones from fats when glucose levels are low.
8. Insulin resistance, the process whereby insulin receptors in the body stop responding to normal levels of insulin, when it occurs in the brain starves the brain of energy from glucose. In the absence of ketones that means the brain is just starved of energy
9. Insulin resistance develops over time as a result of prolonged high levels of glucose in the body. These high levels are the result of a high carbohydrate diet.
10. Insulin resistance leads to hyperglycaemia, type 2 diabetes and eventually type 3 diabetes aka dementia.

The conclusion from the talk is that a ketogenic diet, one which is low in carbohydrate and low in seed oils, will both help prevent dementia and alleviate the symptoms if it has already set in. Good amounts of healthy sleep are also important along with moderate exercise for good brain health.

Bottom line: you need a healthy brain to play your best chess.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I think the main thing is that tactical and calculation abilities get weaker. To slow down the process, I suppose practicing tactics (and calculation exercises from books) should help, in order to counterbalance the natural decline in these areas.

The good news though is that as players get older, their greater experience can help with their intuition. It doesn't fully make up for the decline in other areas, but it helps somewhat.
> 3 votes

# Answer
"Tactics" (answer by **InertialIgnorance**) is the answer most people give. (It would be very interesting project to let a single proband make a standardized tactics test with different age. Another, maybe easier, test might be to check the difference between tournament and blitz Elo, since blitz is much more tactics-prone.)

This (people are different, duh) is not necessarily the only possible answer. Personally, I spot a growing risk aversion (positions where I offered a draw, where Young Hauke would fought red in tooth and claw - and scored more than 50% in average). Naturally, this costs Elo points either! (For fun, I googled how you can train risk taking, but on a fleeting look I only found "swearing". Well, kiss my bishop pair :-)
> 2 votes

# Answer
From my own experience it is the loss of speed and precision of calculation. I have to work at tactics I used to just see. I have stopped playing over-the-board tournaments. I now only play "postal" chess where I have more time for safety checks. I am better than I have ever been at strategic positional play and endings.

As Inertial Ignorance mentioned practicing tactics helps. I do more tactic puzzles now than I ever have.
> 2 votes

# Answer
***It is urgent that we understand that if bad health increases, brain skill decreases.*** This happens at any age. However, it is not the same if we start to take care of our health when we are senior adults than if we start to take care of our health since our childhood. ***What we can do?*** Health education will motivate us because if we understand the effect of bad habits, it will be easier to replace bad habits with good habits. ***Sleep well, reduce stress, do exercise, good nutrition, eliminate smoking, alcohol, and drugs. We need to do aerobic exercise, but also anaerobic exercise. Some research suggest that anaerobic is fundamental. I would say that we need to do both. Besides this, there is research that we need to put our brain outside of our comfort zone. Challenge your brain!*** Do not play blitz. Only classical chess. Most of chess players have convinced themselves, for convinience, that blitz and classical chess are the same, but they are not. About chess games, I play a daily chessgame, 5+***30***, on lichess.org. ***Do not focus on the results. Just play one game per day and analyze it. Try hard to discover and learn from your mistakes. If you have enough financial resources, hire a nutritionist and a chess trainer.*** You can get online chess lessons for $10 per hour. It is a myth that we cannot improve. If you have time, learn a new language, learn to play a musical instrument, study the great philosophers, and the great mathematicians. It is extremely important to study the last research about the brain and health in general. ***Subscribe to American Mind, a magazine specialized in brain health.*** In chess, more important than reading is to solve exercises without time limit. I had the opportunity to listen a lecture from one of the best chess trainers of the world, ***Ramachandran Ramesh***, he emphasized that puzzle exercises are important if you get 100% or you are close. So, quality is more important than quantity. Puzzle rush, it is a very bad idea because, according to Ramachandran Ramesh, you "learn to be mediocre." We need to fight to achieve excellence. Puzzles are extremely difficult and helpful. There are excellent books. Do middlegames and endgames puzzles. I like Maxim Blokh, Mark Dvoretsky, and Steve Giddins books. But, there are fantastic books written by John Nunn, Jonathan Speelman, Jacob Aagaard, Boris Gelfand, Boris Gulko, etc. It is important to do 50% endgames, 50% middlegames. If you have time do as many as possible every day. ***However, if you do not have good health, your chess ability will decline no matter what you do. Physical and mental health must be your priority!*** Best of luck!
> 1 votes

---
Tags: aging
---


# Question
Title: Why does Black get away with giving White so many free tempi in the Sicilian?
Every child learns that piece activity is the most important principle in chess, which is why we should develop quickly in the opening and avoid unnecessary pawn moves (and start with 1.e4 or 1.d4, because we can then develop a bishop and take a share of the center).

The Sicilian violates a number of opening principles and still is not only sound, but one of the most respected replies to 1. e4 - why? What does that tell about the validity of certain opening principles?

Consider the following position where Stockfish thinks that Black has already equalized (0.0 at depth 33)

```
            [FEN ""]
             1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 e6 7. O-O

```

Black is cramped, White has a pawn in the center. Black has only one piece developed, White has developed **four** pieces and the king is already safe. The own pawns restrict Black's bishops, whereas White has easy development. Black has done 5 pawn moves, **none** of which meaningfully fostered active development.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Here's a quote from GM Yasser Seirawan's book, *Winning Chess Brilliancies*, on the related position after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be2 a6.

> This extraordinary move is typical of Open Sicilians. Black spends an entire tempo in the opening to protect his b5 square. This move fits in with the idea of *restraining* White's pieces. Look at the center: you can see that Black does a good job of protecting his side of the board.
>
> Black simply intends to develop the rest of his pieces while exchanging any enemy pieces that might launch an invasion. He will then try to utilize his extra center pawn. Another rationale behind playing ...a7-a6 is to continue with ...b7-b5 and a quick queenside fianchetto.
>
> The question is, can Black spend a tempo on niceties while White is completing his development for attack?

A few moves later, after 7. O-O Nf6 8. Be3 Be7 9. f4 d6, GM Seirawan writes:

> Black parries with a forced and good reaction. Again note how Black's pieces and pawns control a broad array of center squares, nearly all on his side! This means that the attacker will have to work twice as hard, spending extra tempi to move into Black's camp for a confrontation.
>
> White's task will be as difficult as catching a mole that is making a mess in the front lawn. The animal burrows into its hole, making it a challenge for the attacker just to get a grip on it. A battle is fought simply to get the mole out of his hole. By the time that is achieved, the attacker is exhausted, and the mole is angry and ready to fight!
>
> ...
>
> Look back at \[the position\] - it is much more vital to find the advantages and disadvantages of a given position. Black, although cramped, has no obvious weaknesses. The d6-pawn is a potential weakness, but Black can defend this pawn far more times than it can be attacked.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be2 a6 7. O-O Nf6 8. Be3 Be7 9. f4 d6

```

To summarize: Black's position might be cramped, but he has no weaknesses, and White's pieces have no obvious entry points. Hence Black "gets away" with giving White so many free tempi. It does mean White gets to attack, but Black's position is very defensible, with counterattacking potential. Finally, Black does have a static advantage in the Open Sicilian - he has an extra central pawn. White must do something with his initiative (not easy), or Black will take over.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The main counterpoint to your argument is that all the advantages you list are temporary, practice has shown that it is difficult for White to exploit them, and White has made important long-term concessions. In particular, Black has the semi-open c file, which is usually more important (easier to exploit / has a stronger effect) than the semi-open d file. In more detail:

> Black is cramped

Somewhat true, but temporary. Furthermore, that’s Black’s fate in many lines of the French, Caro-Kahn, Ruy Lopez etc. I would say the Sicilian is the opening where Black fights for space most ferociously among all sound replies against 1.e4. (That is a very broad brush - it depends on the exact line, of course.)

> White has a pawn in the center.

True, but temporary. On the other side, White has only one center pawn left, while Black has two center pawns, which means in the long term Black has better chances to control the center. If Black manages to play ...d5 (a thematic move in many Sicilians), she will usually at least equalize.

> Black has only one piece developed, White has developed four pieces and the king is already safe.

White does have a significant edge in development (although "four pieces" is an overstatement: realistically, the Rf1 and Be2 are not doing much right now). However, that is only significant if White manages to somehow convert this temporary advantage before Black catches up. Black has no immediate weakness for White to attack.

In that context, White must create such a weakness, which is usually achieved by pushing some pawns (at the expense of development and pawn structure). One of the most common plans to proceed from the line you give is to go f4-f5, forcing a reckoning in the center/kingside. (Also, kingside castling is one of the calmest / least ambitious attempts against the Najdorf; many other tries include queenside castling and a g4-g5 push in some order.)

> The own pawns restrict Black's bishops, whereas White has easy development.

If White plays passively, Black’s bishops will go on e7 (which is not great, but not worse than the Be2) and b7 (which is much better than anywhere the Bc1 can hope to go). If White plays aggressively, the position will open up *somehow* (the details depend on the line), and *usually* in a way that will give Black further options.

> Black has done 5 pawn moves, none of which meaningfully fostered active development.

The number of pawn moves made is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the end state reached. So that is really a duplicate of the point about White’s development advantage (see above). Also, all of these pawn moves take control of important squares, so they are not for nothing either.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I am not nearly a strong enough player to make any authoratative assessment on the position you provided, and for what it's worth, I agree with your evaluation completely. To me that position looks so much better for white.

However, I would like to mention a very fun chess book by Willy Hendriks called "Move first, think later", where he argues against the type of adages you used in your evaluation. For Willy there is only one criterion - what are the *moves* available to you? Everything else is noise.

And indeed it is my understanding that strong players put much more weight on the *concreteness* of a position than the rough principles weaklings like me rely on. Does this mean we can now ignore these principles and adages of chess that we accumulated over the years? Maybe not so fast - the great Korchnoi once said: "Before you break the rules, you must first *know* the rules".

# Answer
> 3 votes
Chess is hyperconcrete. Black walks in the black sunshine (I probably might even play b5, +0.8) and if he keeps on this way, knights will fly around Blacks ears at b5, d5, f5 or e6. Black won't get away with *everything*.

But at the moment...

* King safety is irrelevant, at least one of the named knight sacrifices are needed to get in the vicinity of the king and still won't have the desired effect.
* The developed pieces of White have no jump-in posts in the Black position. They are developed, but they do nothing concrete!

Some fun experiments:

* Delete Pe4 Pd6. Still 0.
* Delete Pe4 Pe6. +1.0, I would have expected more.
* Delete black castling rights. +1.0. Engine suggests h5.

Suggestion to the OP. There are enough Sicilians where Black overdid it and got annihilated. (Disclaimer: Author has ample personal experience.) Study them.

# Answer
> 2 votes
***A short answer to your question,*** by Francois Andre Danican- Philidor (better known just as Philidor (7 September 1726 – 31 August 1795)) and possibly the most known quote in chess. The full quote is: ***"Pawns are the soul of the game. They alone create attack and defense, the way they are deployed decides the fate of the game."*** Philidor is considered the best chess player of his times. What we currently call a world chess champion. So, your analysis underestimates the pawn moves. White did not get any "free tempi" because Black pawns are in key squares. That is the reason why the British Empire put a lot of effort in conquering Gibraltar, Falkand Islands, Australia, Canada, etc. Key positions. Black is not better, but is not bad either.

***A long answer to your question,*** from the best chess book of all times. "My System", by Aaron Nimzowitch. The former world champion Tigran Petrosian read the book more than 10 times for a reason: ***"the positional struggle comes down to a struggle between mobility (of the pawn mass) on one hand and restraining tendencies on the other."*** The Sicilian is difficult for everybody. So difficult, that I prefer to start with 1.c4 :) So, you are not the only one who struggles with the Sicilian!!! ***This a long answer because you have to read the book of Nimzowitch!!!*** Best of luck!

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, najdorf
---


title: PGN Header Edit

text:
# Question
Title: PGN Header Edit
Anyone aware of a way to do a mass edit of the header in a pgn file that has multiple games?

Currently I've tried using pgn-extract and the line I have tried is:

```
pgn-extract -C -N -V -newfile.pgn oldfile.pgn

```

This does cleanup any annotations in the moves list but the header still remains the same.

Here's an example of a header. In the below header example, say I'd want to get rid of the "Round 29" portion .

> \[Event "F/S Return Match"\] \[Site "Belgrade, Serbia JUG"\] \[Date "1992.11.04"\] \[Round "29"\] \[White "Fischer, Robert J."\] \[Black "Spassky, Boris V."\] \[Result "1/2-1/2"\]

# Answer
You can do it with pgn-extract via a combination of the -R flag, to select the tags you want to retain (and their ordering), and the --xroster option to omit all those tags not listed in the roster file. For instance, if you want only White, Black and Result tags included with each game, place White, Black and Result (one per line) in a file called `roster`, say and then run pgn-extract as follows:

```
pgn-extract -C -N -V -R roster --xroster -newfile.pgn oldfile.pgn

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: pgn
---


# Question
Title: How do you find the highest-rated win of a certain player?
I'm looking for a tool where I can input a name (e.g. Hans Niemann, Levy Rozman, Eric Rosen etc.) and it will tell me the highest rated player they beat in chess (FIDE rated games). I appreciate any help!

# Answer
> 3 votes
No such tool exists. You will have to write it yourself. Here is what you need to do:

1. Go to the "Individual Calculations" page for the player you are interested in. For Hans Niemann that is here.
2. You will see the word "available" for each month/time control combination where he has FIDE rated games. Click on one of these, for instance Standard/September 2022.
3. There you will see that he had two wins against Kobalia(2578) and Idani(2641). Record these as you wish.
4. Rpeat for all periods where results are "available" for the time control(s) you are interested in.

I would suggest you write a program to do screen/data scraping to speed this up.

# Answer
> 1 votes
If you have Chessbase:

1. Step one: Filter every game played by your player and the result (i.e. your player won; you can do this for White and Black separately and merge the results, but you shouldn't even need to).
2. Step two: Sort by rating.

That's it.

# Answer
> 1 votes
This is possible to do with scid vs pc (free and open source) as follows

* Load a database (e.g., caissabase, which is free)
* filter games in which player X plays white and wins
* in the filtered collection in the game list window click on the button 'black elo' to sort the collection by black elo.

Do the same by filtering games in which X plays black and wins.

---
Tags: software, fide, rating
---


title: What kind of software is this?

text:
# Question
Title: What kind of software is this?
I was watching a Daniel Noroditsky stream and saw that he is using this application for analysis. I'm quite new to chess and I couldn't google it.

Does anybody know the name of this chess program?

# Answer
> 9 votes
It's ChessBase GUI with some bundled engine.

Here's a screenshot from ChessBase's official documentation, for reference:

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: Can a tournament be FIDE rated if it has multiple time controls based on player ratings
If we ran a weekly club tournament that has different time controls for different games based on both players' ratings as set forth in the FIDE regulations, would the tournament qualify as a Standard rated non-norm event? Or do all games played in the tournament need to follow the same time control?

# Answer
According to FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 January 2022 you can submit games from different players for rating where different time controls are used to accommodate different player ratings. FIDE rates games rather than tournaments, however the way it receives those results for rating is via tournament report forms (TRF). The tournaments those TRFs come from have to be registered with FIDE and part of the registration process requires one time control to be specified for the entire tournament. That registration has to be performed by your national federation.

That suggests two possible approaches which you would need to run past your national federation who will be your link with FIDE.

1. Run your one tournament as 3 separate tournaments with time controls of 90+30, 60+30 and 30+30 and allocate the games to the 3 tournaments according to the ratings of the players of the individual games.
2. Have one tournament with one advertised time control of 90+30 but run games with time controls according to the players ratings.

Whichever approach you decide to take you will need to be open about it and get the approval of your national federation who will be submitting games for rating to FIDE and who will be responsible if FIDE are not happy.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide, time-control
---


# Question
Title: Why underpromote? Hjartarson vs Andersen
Chess.com - Praggnanandhaa wins 2022 Reykjavik Open:

> he missed a unique underpromotion to a bishop as the only move to win the position

Why does a Queen promotion not win him the game?

# Answer
> Why does a Queen promotion not win him the game?

Because black can play the kamikaze Qg2+ forcing stalemate after Kxg2.

Here is the critical position in the game where Hjartarson could have forced through the pawn to promote via the queen sacrifice Qf7+ but needs to promote to a bishop. Hjartarson instead played e7 leading to a draw. Presumably he calculated the queen sacrifice and saw that promoting to a queen led to stalemate but didn't calculate the underpromotion.

```
[title "Hjartarson vs Andersen Reykjavik Open 2022"]
[fen "4r1k1/3R2p1/2q1P2p/5QnP/5N2/6P1/5P2/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. e7 (1. Qf7+ Nxf7 2. exf7+ Kh7 3. fxe8=B! (3. fxe8=Q? Qg2+ 4. Kxg2=))

```
> 36 votes

---
Tags: analysis, pawn-promotion
---


# Question
Title: Do chess clocks typically provide count up features?
I've decided to purchase a chess clock for productivity at work, and I really like the dual display of the chess clock: one timer for work, another timer for fooling around. However, I'd like to know, do game clocks typically offer count-up mode rather than count down?

# Answer
> 5 votes
It is not a typical use case, so you will definitely want to make sure that the clock you're purchasing does have a count-up mode (or is analog, in which case, you probably want to make sure it is quiet). The Chronos digital clock does have a couple of count-up modes (UP-1 and UP-2).

# Answer
> 3 votes
I've never heard of any digital ones that do, but the old analog clocks count up, of course.

Interesting idea.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Here is an online version of what I think you are looking for:

chess timer

# Answer
> 1 votes
The Leap PQ9907S has count up as the default mode!

---
Tags: chess-clocks, equipment
---


title: Where to find 3D chess pieces set?

text:
# Question
Title: Where to find 3D chess pieces set?
There are many questions regarding the 2D chess sets here, but I couldn't find any questions regarding 3D chess sets.

I couldn't find any free or paid 3D chess set on the internet

The following chess pieces set is from chess,com. so I think I can't use it in my chess project.

So is there any source where I can find any 3D chess sets (Free or Paid)?

# Answer
Lichess uses these 3D pieces:

https://github.com/clarkerubber/Staunton-Pieces

The repository contains renders in various styles and resolutions as lossless PNGs, as well as the original 3D files.

Available under a MIT License

example: https://github.com/clarkerubber/Staunton-Pieces/blob/master/Renders/Basic/Scaled/Black-King.png

Or in wood, as your examples:
> 4 votes

---
Tags: pieces, chess-set
---


# Question
Title: How can I query the current value of an UCI option?
I've got a (simple) question regarding the UCI options and their current values:

* I start my engine (e. g. Stockfish).
* The console opens and I enter "uci" and press \[Enter\]. As a result, I get a list of options which the engine supports, with their min and max value, their type and their default setting. For example: option name Ponder type check default false
* Let's say I change the following option: setoption name ponder value true
* As I don't get an error, I expect that this option has been switched to true. But, when I now enter "uci" once more, I get the following output: option name Ponder type check default false

As you can see, it is exactly the same output that I already got when starting the engine and entered "uci" the very first time. I expect to see this: option name Ponder type check default false current value true

or something similar. Note: "current value true" was added by me, just to show what I expect.

Regardless which option I change, I never can query the current value. Why?

# Answer
We cannot query on it as it is not supported by the protocol. However we can do something about it. I tried to maintain the uci protocol and added an issue with the following proposal.

### Proposal 1

Support the command `optionvalues`. This command is sent to the engine. Some examples on engine reply format.

```
option name Threads value 2
option name Ponder value true
option name EvalFile value mynn.nnue

```

Feel free to post, comment or add your proposal in that repo.

I will inform the engine programmers community about this issue as well, so that they can support this on their engine.

By the way this is the usage of `uci` command.

```
* uci
    Tells the engine to use the uci (universal chess interface),
    this will be sent once as a first command after program boot
    to tell the engine to switch to uci mode.
    After receiving the uci command the engine must identify itself with the "id" command
    and send the "option" commands to tell the GUI which engine settings the engine supports if
    any. After that the engine should send "uciok" to acknowledge the uci mode. If no uciok is sent
    within a certain time period, the engine task will be killed by the GUI.

```

What is your use case why you query the current engine option values? From a gui's perspective, it can store option values that it sent to the engine.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: stockfish
---


# Question
Title: What is the required material to force a king move checkmate?
A fun thing to do is to try to achieve specific "achievements" (like these) in real games.

One such achievement is to **checkmate with a king move**. As the king itself obviously can't deliver checks, it would have to be through a discovery (or castling, but one seldom has castling rights preserved in the endgame).

**When can this be forced?** It seems to require more fire power than a regular checkmate

A queen and a heavy piece is enough to force this through the standard knight-opposition manoeuvre to drive the king to a corner and then setting up the checkmate

```
[title "Queen + heavy piece"]
[fen "8/1K6/5k2/8/8/8/8/R2Q4 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qd5 Kg7 2.Qe6 Kh8 3.Qe7 Kg8 4.Kb8 Kh8 5.Ra8 Kg8 6.Kb7#

```

Queen and bishop doesn't seem to be enough, at least with the same setup. While the king can cover the g8 prison square while simultaneously uncovering the bishop, the enemy king unfortunately escapes down the h file:

```
[title "Queen + bishop"]
[fen "7k/4Q2/5K2/8/8/8/8/B7 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kf7+ Kh7

```

Queen + bishop + light piece to cover h7 would be enough.

Some basic checkmates like KQvK, KRvK and KBNvK are obviously *not* possible since their required setups have no room for a discovery

**What other material combinations can force a king move checkmate?**

# Answer
> 4 votes
I also looked a bit into "king discovered mates that can be forced from any nonspecial position", and the following material suffices:

* RR (obvious)
* RXY where X and Y are light officers (Ka5 Ra1 Nd7 Nd8, Ka8 is easily forced, Kb6#; replacing a knight with a bishop is analogous)
* XYZ also suffices except for 3 N (Kc6 Bh1 Nd7 Nb4, Ka8 is easily forced, Kb6#; Nd7 may be replaced with Bh2)

On the other hand...

* QX does not force (neither B or N can cover b8 and c8 together), thus RX neither

Since P can promote and black material must be captured before mate, this should cover all cases (e.g. QXY can be "reduced" to XYZ).

# Answer
> 8 votes
As you noted, no "K + single piece" can achieve this. Here is an overview to the "K + two x" cases, of which only three cases don't work. Note that these base cases allow for any further pieces, so there are only 8 exceptions that can't achieve this.

# Queen+x works in all cases

**1. KQPvK**

```
[fen "7k/5P2/7K/7Q/8/8/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Kg6

```

**2. KQBvK**

```
[fen "7k/5B2/7K/7Q/8/8/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Kg6

```

**3. KQNvK**

```
[fen "7k/4N3/7K/7Q/8/8/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Kg6

```

**4. KQRvK**

```
[fen "RK5k/3Q4/8/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Kb7

```

**5. KQQvK**

```
[fen "7k/5Q2/7K/7Q/8/8/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Kg6

```

# Bishop+x works in all cases

**6. KBPvK**

```
[fen "7k/5P2/5K2/4B3/8/8/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Kg6

```

**7. KBNvK**

```
[fen "7k/4N3/5K2/4B3/8/8/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Kg6

```

**8. KBBvK**

```
[fen "7k/5B2/5K2/4B3/8/8/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Kg6

```

**9. KBRvK**

```
[fen "R3K2k/8/6B1/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Kf7

```

# Rook+xworks in all cases

**10. KRPvK**

```
[fen "R3K2k/8/6P1/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Kf7

```

**11. KRNvK**

```
[fen "R3K2k/8/5N2/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Kf7

```

**12. KRRvK**

```
[fen "RK5k/2R5/8/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Kb7

```

**KRBvK, KRQvK** see above.

# The 8 exceptions

**KPvK, KNvK, KBvK, KRvK, KQvK**,

**KNNvK, KNPvK, KPPvK**

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate, kings, discovered-check
---


# Question
Title: Why does White have a large advantage in this position?
```
[FEN "r3k1nr/pp1b1ppp/4p3/B7/8/8/PPP2PPP/R3KB1R w KQkq - 1 13"]

```

This position is from ScorpioNN-Minic, in the 23rd TCEC season, after 12...Bd7. ScorpioNN evaluated the position as +2.18, while Minic gave +1.84.

I don't see where such a large advantage is coming from. Yes White has the bishop pair, but surely the bishop pair can't be *that* large an advantage. Black has no weaknesses, material is equal, White barely has a development advantage. The only explanation I can think of is that Minic and ScorpioNN, being strong-but-not-top engines, might be misevaluating the position - but kibitzing Leela's +0.55 is fairly substantial (by Leela's standards). Leela's Win/Draw/Loss score of \[44.4% W | 46.7% D | 8.9% B\] indicates White has almost as much chance of winning as of drawing.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Stockfish 15 evaluates this position at around +1 (from the first graph in the readme of https://github.com/vondele/WLD\_model, this roughly seems to be a little over a 20% chance of winning), which seems reasonable to me. The bishop pair is a nice asset, and White's development advantage is perhaps more potent than it might seem. First of all, it's his turn. But second, after say 0-0-0, the d7-bishop will be attacked. It's likely Black will need to spend an additional tempo moving the bishop (leaving it defended by an f6-knight seems very flimsy). And then, a black rook won't be able to immediately move to d8, due to the a5-bishop. So Black may have to play ...b6 too, which will slightly weaken the queenside pawns. Since they're on dark squares, they may become a long-term target for White's dark-squared bishop later on. The a6-square would also be weakened, and conveniently this is a square that White's light-squared bishop already controls.

There's also the problem of the black knight. It doesn't really have any good outposts, and so it lacks a way to stably be active. Sure it can sit on f6, but if White plays a move like f3, the knight will be denied control of the e4- and g4-squares (a pawn on f3 would also limit a black bishop on c6). If the knight moves to d5, White always has the option of just kicking it away with c4. In open positions like these without a fixed pawn structure, a knight often does poorly due to there not being many squares that only its side controls.

One more thing I'd like to add is the opposing pawn majorities. If the pawn structure were symmetrical (say, 3v3 on the kingside and queenside), White would still have some edge, but not as much. Since White has a 3v2, he has the ability to create a passed pawn. While the same applies to Black with his 4v3, White will probably have an easier time in creating a passer due to his various advantages already discussed.

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: How to convert better positions and not to get swindled OTB?
For context I am new to OTB chess with 30 games under my belt and a rating of around 1930 fide. I have a very definite problem. Last tournament I dropped 3 pieces in 3 consecutive games in either equal or better positions, 2 of those were free pieces which were being attacked and not defended, one of those is a familiar pattern, discovered Queen attack on the knight on h5 in the king's indian, which I noticed and then forgot about. The other was a free pawn in a somewhat better position (haven't noticed), the third was allowing myself to get forked by a bishop onto my knight and rook so that I must give away one of the pieces in a around +2 ending for me. Yesterday I played a league game against a 2100 fide and had a completely dominant position after 17 moves. Then the familiar pattern occurred, I dropped a pawn, followed by dropping a pawn again. The control I had over the position dissipated, but I managed to complicate and hold a draw.

This problem happens online as well. I either start dropping pieces in a better position or I can't convert +7 positions (not always, but it happens way too often). Similarly, I played against 2 FMs (2200 fide) OTB and had a +7 and +6 lead respectively and still managed to lose the games. A part of the problem is time management, a part is an inherent bias towards controlling the position and not wanting to let go of the control and then losing the edge since the position demands converting.

I don't think I have problems tactically, for reference I am now doing Jacob Aagaard's book "Grandmaster preparation: Calculation". I take about 15-20 minutes approximately for a puzzle and in the first 20 my score is 15.5/20 (0.5 for recognizing the idea, but wrong execution).

When writing this it dawned on me that there are two problems: 1.)dropping pieces for no reason and 2.)failing to convert winning positions.

I was wondering if anyone has/had a similar problems and if so what did you do to ameliorate them/it?

# Answer
> 4 votes
There's an entire chapter in GM Yasser Seirawan's book *Winning Chess Strategies* dealing with this question. The chapter name is "Stopping Enemy Counterplay". You might want to take a look. Here's a brief summary (I can't possibly summarize the entire chapter):

**Spotting tactical threats**. There comes a time when you are winning that you just want to get the game over with. You can't do this however, because all it takes is one missed tactic and the game turns around. You must force yourself to continue to concentrate until you either checkmate or opponent resigns. GM Seirawan gives this position to illustrate the danger.

```
[FEN "8/4kpp1/3b4/KB6/8/1R6/7p/2r5 w - - 0 1"]

1. Re3+ Kf8?? 2. Re8#

```

White is completely busted and might as well resign. Meanwhile, Black is jumping for joy because with this win they also become the World Junior Chess Champion for girls under 10. Before resigning, White decides to play some spite checks first. After 1. Re3+, Black barely looks at the board and plays 1...Kf8?? and loses after 2. Re8#. The game is not over till it's over!

**Keeping opponent helpless**. You need to not only pursue your own plans, but also stop the opponent's. GM Seirawan gives this example from Spassky-Petrosian, World Chess Championship, 1966.

```
[FEN "2kr3r/pbqnbp2/1p2p3/2ppP2p/PP3B1p/2PBPN2/5PP1/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1...c4! 2. Be2 a6! 3. Kh1 Rdg8 4. Rg1 Rg4 5. Qd2 Rhg8 6. a5 b5

```

Black is up a pawn, but the extra pawn is not really relevant right now because of opposite-sides castling. It should be clear that White is going to push their queenside pawns to open lines and mount an attack on the enemy king, while Black does the same on the kingside. If you only care about your own plans, you might play a move like 1...Rdg8 in this position, but that allows White to play 2. a5 and open lines. That's why Black plays 1...c4 followed by 2...a6. Black has lost control of the d4-square, but White's counterplay is completely stopped - if White plays a5, Black will play ...b5; if White plays b5, Black will play ...a5. The queenside remains closed, White has no counterplay, and Black can pursue their attack in peace.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I break down some points that may help.

1. Mindset. Interestingly enough, getting the initiative and launching an attack on the king, or controlling a weakness, is rather intuitive. However, in the event of winning material, the whole targeted thinking dissipates. At this point, it is not about winning pawn, controlling the key square, it is about converting the game. Converting the game is not a trivial thing. It requires a good feel for the position, e.g., when to simplify to a winning endgame, or when to keep the tension to obtain more material advantage, technique, and experience. Therefore, if you have got an advantage, you need to be extra focused to (i) upset your opponent's tricks and sources of counterplay (e.g., pawn breaks, rook/queen invasion, etc.), and (ii) to not miss any chance to further your advantage.
2. Physical form and mental state. This point proved to be crucial when I had a similar amounts of games OTB as you. I would often get sweaty, nervous, and feel palpitations while winning, quite often leading to blunders. To cope with them, play as many games OTB as possible, at some point your body will internalise the feeling of winning as something more natural. Develop a routine, e.g., at the climax of tension, have few sips of water and walk around, have a quick chat with someone. I also realised to be more sensitive to these responses when I was sleepless, in bad shape, or overly stressed with things off the board.
3. Time management and fatigue. In the early stages of the game, it makes a huge difference whether you have a complete repertoire, know the main ideas from home, and are able to play confidently and rapidly, than to improvise over the board and discover new ideas (while is fascinating). The latter will pay its toll with fatigue. The former will save you energy and time, that you will have in store for the conversion of the game.

# Answer
> 2 votes
> When writing this it dawned on me that there are two problems: 1.)dropping pieces for no reason and 2.)failing to convert winning positions.

Focus on one issue at a time, I suggest focus on not dropping pieces first. This is not tactics; it is discipline. Make sure to check all checks, captures, attacks on your queen that you opponent has after your move. Also check if you for any mate threats and loose pieces and pawns that you have, that you opponent can pick them up.

It is easy to forget to check, I've done it many times, sometimes I get too excited about attack and forget about my opponents threats or I get too focused on defending against one threat and I ignore others. Or the worse, I think everything is winning and I don't bother to check. It is important to stay cool and disciplined.

# Answer
> 1 votes
***Every chess player has the same problem. My main advice is to not be too hard with yourself. The most difficult part of chess is the psychology of a chess game and the psychology of a chess player.*** There is a very small percentage of chess players who keep playing classic chess through their entire life because most of the people who learn to play chess cannot live with the mistakes that they make. ***Making mistakes is part of the human nature, we always will make mistakes. However, the more you practice, the percentage of mistakes will be smaller or at least the same.*** I advised you to quit 100% blitz and puzzle rush because that increases the probability of making a mistake (It is true that Magnus Carlsen plays 1-minute chess games without any issue. But, he is a genius. We need a suggestion that works for most of the human population). A second suggestion is that you play a daily classic game on lichess. In that way, you will be practing classic chess every game. My third recomendation, it is to analyze your games, identify your mistakes, and TRY to not repeat them, or at least to repeat less frequently (***"Learn from your own mistakes" is one of the best secrets for chess and every field***). My fourth advice is correspondence chess. Most of the chess players believe that correspondence chess is only computers playing chess. However, it is not. When you play correspondence chess your understanding of openings, middle game, and endgames will increase a lot. Also, you can play 100% free at Lechenicher Schachserver. My fifth suggestion: ***Listen "The Perpetual Chess Podcast."*** It is available for free on YouTube. Start with episode 1. Many of the best chess trainers and players of the world have been interviewed. You will get from there a lot of good tips for free. In addition, if you sponsor the podcast with $5 per month, you can send your questions to the trainers and players who will be interviewed.My last advice, it is that if you have the financial resources, you hire a chess trainer. It is not the same if you go a war alone than if you have an advisor. You can get a chess trainer for $15 per hour at lichess.org. If you do not have money, you can post your games in chess forums. You can get a lot of advices for free. Best of luck! P.S. I wrote an answer about people who are getting old. However, it is valid for any age. Please read it as well. Here is the link: What can you do to slow/stop the decline in chess ability with age?

---
Tags: tactics, psychology, time-control, otb-chess, advantage
---


# Question
Title: Workaround for strange behavior of Windows chess engines in Linux GUIs?
There's no problem with native Linux engines or with JAVA engines, only with Windows engines started using `wine`.

All Windows engines behave the same, both win32 and x64, both UCI and XB.

Windows engines seem to work fine in a terminal window.

```
> wine uci_engine.exe
> go

info depth 2
info depth 2 score cp 12 time 8 nodes 96 nps 12288 pv b1c3
....

```

They even work in a Windows GUI started using wine (e.g. `wine Arena.exe`).

But they don't work in any Linux GUI (CuteChess, Arena for Linux, XBoard).
Engines initialize OK (e.g. UCI options can be set etc.) but the main thread doesn't start calculating.

If this is a single thread UCI engine, the process starts sleeping instead of calculating after the `go` command.
If this is a multi thread engine, the main thread starts sleeping and the remaining threads start calculating.

Example output from the CuteChess engine debug window:

```
<rybka1(1): id name Rybka 1.2n 32-bit
<rybka1(1): id author Vasik Rajlich
<rybka1(1): option name Hash type spin min 2 max 4096 default 32
<rybka1(1): option name NalimovPath type string default <empty>
<rybka1(1): option name NalimovCache type spin min 1 max 256 default 1
<rybka1(1): option name NalimovUsage type combo default Normally var Frequently var Normally var Rarely
<rybka1(1): option name Preserve Analysis type check default false
<rybka1(1): option name Clear Hash type button
<rybka1(1): option name Ponder type check default true
<rybka1(1): option name MultiPV type spin default 1 min 1 max 100
<rybka1(1): option name UCI_ShowCurrLine type check default false
<rybka1(1): option name UCI_ShowRefutations type check default false
<rybka1(1): option name UCI_LimitStrength type check default false
<rybka1(1): option name UCI_Elo type spin default 1200 min 1200 max 2400
<rybka1(1): option name Server Buffer type check default false
<rybka1(1): option name UCI_AnalyseMode type check default false
<rybka1(1): option name UCI_Opponent type string default <empty>
<rybka1(1): option name UCI_EngineAbout type string default www.rybkachess.com
<rybka1(1): option name Contempt type spin default 0 min -100 max 100
<rybka1(1): option name Outlook type combo default Neutral var Very Pessimistic var Slightly Pessimistic var Neutral var Slightly Optimistic var Very Optimistic var Ultra Optimistic
<rybka1(1): option name Rate Of Play type combo default Normal var Ultraslow var Slow var Normal var Fast var Ultrafast
<rybka1(1): option name Time Usage type combo default Varied var Constant var Varied
<rybka1(1): option name Emergency Time Buffer type combo default Medium var Small var Medium var Large
<rybka1(1): uciok
>rybka1(1): setoption name Contempt value 0
>rybka1(1): setoption name Emergency Time Buffer value Medium
>rybka1(1): setoption name Hash value 32
>rybka1(1): setoption name MultiPV value 1
>rybka1(1): setoption name NalimovCache value 1
>rybka1(1): setoption name NalimovPath value <empty>
>rybka1(1): setoption name NalimovUsage value Normally
>rybka1(1): setoption name Outlook value Neutral
>rybka1(1): setoption name Preserve Analysis value false
>rybka1(1): setoption name Rate Of Play value Normal
>rybka1(1): setoption name Server Buffer value false
>rybka1(1): setoption name Time Usage value Varied
>rybka1(1): setoption name UCI_Elo value 1200
>rybka1(1): setoption name UCI_LimitStrength value false
>rybka1(1): isready
<rybka1(1): info contempt set to 0 centipawns
<rybka1(1): info setting emergency time buffer to medium
<rybka1(1): info displaying 1 variations
<rybka1(1): info setting nalimov usage to normally
<rybka1(1): info setting outlook to neutral
<rybka1(1): info setting preserve analysis to false
<rybka1(1): info setting rate of play to normal
<rybka1(1): info Server Buffer set to false
<rybka1(1): info setting time usage style to varied
<rybka1(1): info UCI_Elo set to 1200
<rybka1(1): info UCI_LimitStrength set to false
<rybka1(1): readyok
>rybka1(1): ucinewgame
>rybka1(1): setoption name Ponder value false
>rybka1(1): setoption name UCI_Opponent value none none human adam
>rybka1(1): position startpos
>rybka1(1): isready
<rybka1(1): info UCI_Opponent set to none none human adam
<rybka1(1): readyok
>rybka1(1): go wtime 300000 btime 300000 movestogo 40

```

After the last command this single thread engine starts sleeping. It doesn't terminate but it does nothing.

I believe there is a bug somewhere but maybe somebody knows a workaround?
Tried wine 6 (stable) and 7 (devel).

The system in question is Linux Mint 21 (x64, Cinnamon) on i7-6700/32GB RAM.

# Answer
After a week-long struggle I found a stupid albeit usable workaround that could be helpful for someone else.

Windows engines run on a Windows computer (in my case a Windows 10 virtual machine in VirtualBox on the same computer) and Linux GUI runs them remotely using `ssh`.

To setup that:

**Windows:**
Install OpenSSH Server.
Set OpenSSH service to start automatically.
Copy desired Windows chess engines to that Windows computer, ideally to the home folder C:\Users\myUser.

**Linux:**
Install `sshpass` using your package manager.
Connect (at least once) using normal interactive ssh (ssh -l myUser ...) to the Windows computer to accept ssh fingerprint (important!).
Create a shell script (e.g. myFavoriteEngine.sh) with content like this:

```
sshpass -p 'myWindowPassword' ssh myWindowsUser@MY.WINDOWS.IP.ADDRESS myFavoriteEngine.exe %1

```

Don't forget to flag the script as executable.
In a Linux GUI, add the engine using the script: `sh myFavoriteChessEngine.sh` and that's all.

It's not great setup for engine to engine tournaments (Virtual Box doesn't allow using hyper threading) but it allows having both Linux and Windows engines in the same Linux GUI.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, linux
---


# Question
Title: Should white be able to win this endgame?
Should white be able to win from the position

```
[fen "8/5k2/3p1p2/3PnP2/1KP1r1P1/8/3RB3/8 b - - 0 67"]

```

with black to move?
(A game I was playing ended there when black just let
black's time run out due to having very little of it left.)
Black can take the g4 pawn, but Stockfish evaluates that as being much worse than
black's alternatives, regardless of whether the capture is immediate or after Ke7 Kb5.
Thus, play should presumably continue Ke7 Kb5 Nd7, resulting in the position

```
[fen "8/3nk3/3p1p2/1K1P1P2/2P1r1P1/8/3RB3/8 b - - 0 69"]

```

with white to move.  From that position, Bd1 is the only way Stockfish sees to make progress.

However, after Bd1, Stockfish thinks black should play Ne5, and then the line it gives is
4. c5 dxc5  5. d6+ Kd7  6. Kxc5 Nf7  7. Bc2 Re5+  8. Rd5 Rxd5+  9. Kxd5 Nxd6   ,
which results in a draw since
with white's pawn still on g4, Nf7 will establish a fortress because black can play Ke7 and N(x)g5 and even if white gives up the g4 pawn, white's king can't attack more than one of {h3,e4,h7}
and the only way for the bishop to do that is from g2, which leaves f7 safe for the knight

and

g5 fxg5 gives a tablebase draw, regardless of whether white plays that immediately
or after Ba4+ Ke7, and Ba4+ Ke7 Be8 Nxe8 gives a tablebase win *for black*
.

(Reminder:  My question was at the top of this post.)

# Answer
White's main threat is c5, which forces a pawn exchange and a passed pawn with king covering queening squares. The bishop is covering the g pawn.

Should black force an exchange of that pawn, white's rook could go to e5 and capture the d pawn, allowing a double passed pawn.

If black defends c5, white first move his king to b4 to cover the next 2 pawn squares, then force black to zugzuang(by moving rook to a file) which forces black to stop defending c5 or move the rook.

If black moves rook to e5, putting pressure on the bishop, white pins black's knight and therefore forces a minor piece exchange, with a more active king, which will then go on and promote pawns.

If black stops pressuring the bishop, the endgame should be easily winnable.

As for Ke7, idea would be the same

For moves that does not either pressurise c5 or protects d6, force an exchange on c5 and you can win easily
> 1 votes

# Answer
Possibly is what my intuition says, but it would take a lot of analysis to know what best play result should be.

OTOH with real people it could easily be a win if they have time pressure in a tournament. Maybe even if not pressure just insufficient time to really do a full scale in depth analysis of all the nuances.

If black takes the pawn and white exchanges B for N then we have a R+P endgame with white a pawn up but black's king in front of the potential passed pawn. That would be very hard to win. But computer analysis might show it is possible.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Stockfish 14.1 NNUE ruled this position as a win. It is indeed evaluated at 4.00 depth =56. After a Rook exchange, a second iteration in the Bishop vs Knight endgame at d=64 returns + 11.15 in favore of White. It seems a win instead, albeit a laborious one.
> 0 votes

# Answer
After 67... Ke7 68.Kb5 Nd7 I think white should try to force to get the king to c6 and next c7. For this a plan is 69.Ra2 with the idea of playing Ra7 next Kc6 that wins on the spot. Black can try to go back 69...Ne5, when 70.Rc2! seems to be good: holds c4 and enables the K to move. Now on 70...Nd7 follows 71.Kc6 and if 71...Ne5+ again, 72.Kc7, with idea c5, winning. Only 72...Nf7 holds f5 a move, but after 73.Rd2 and there is no way to prevent 74.c5 +-

Black can try 69...Re3 70.Ra7 Rb3+ (70...Rxe2? 71.Kc6+-) 71.Kc6 Rb6+ 72.Kc7 Rb2 73.Ra6! is killing e.g. 73... Rxe2 74.Rxd6 +-
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, bad-bishop
---


# Question
Title: Can an engine function implementing UCI except without always reading stdin?
According to the UCI protocol, an engine implementing UCI should always be able to respond to stdin. I thought of two ways to accomplish this in an engine of my own:

* Implement threads like Stockfish does, so search can be interrupted
* While searching, pause and check stdin every so often

However I checked Sunfish's implementation and it seemingly doesn't bother implementing this (commands like `stop` and `go infinite`), yet it can still play on Lichess as a bot. This would obviously simplify my toy engine a lot. So is it necessary to implement these to be able to play the engine reasonably with a GUI like Cute Chess? Also, if I have two engines setup to play each other each given a time control, would they ever need to respond to `stop`, or would killing the engine be enough?

# Answer
> 0 votes
STDIN is buffered on any reasonable system, so unless you straight up discard UCI commands, you are (eventually) dealing with them. Taking a long time to respond may not be *nice*.

So how slow can you be? The UCI specification itself has no limits. Such limits would be up to the GUI.

You mentioned Cute Chess. While it may not be representative for *all* GUIs, Cute Chess limits should give you an idea of how fast you need to respond.

* Engine startup: 35 seconds
* Ping (`isready`): 15 seconds
* Quit: 5 seconds.

---

Making a reasonably functional single threaded engine, the second alternative, "While searching, pause and check stdin every so often" would be perfectly reasonable, "every so often" meaning some seconds.

`stop` and `go infinite`:

So what would "not implementing" these even mean? in the specification:

> * stop
> stop calculating as soon as possible,

"As soon as possible" could very well be to just wait for the search to finish. This is not *great* but it's still implementing the communication protocol. If you consider the GUI timing out the engine and killing it if you try to stop it as "play the engine reasonably", this would be okay.

Same for `go infinite`. You could make your engine do a fixed length search, and then wait around for the corresponding `stop` command. Not a great use of the potentially extra time available, but not a communication protocol violation. (note: A GUI would ignore `bestmove` etc. in this move until it has sent a `stop`)

> Also, if I have two engines setup to play each other each given a time control, would they ever need to respond to stop, or would killing the engine be enough?

An engine vs. engine match can be set up without using the stop command. The engines can reply with `bestmove` at their leisure, and it's up to the GUI to judge the games as lost on time and killing engines when they aren't needed anymore.

---
Tags: engines, uci, arena, cutechess
---


# Question
Title: What are variations that can explain why 1.c4 is often suggested as an alternative starting move for for aggressive players?
I've read that multiple times (see comments for example articles), and many top aggressive players have played it, among them world champion Kasparov and (potentially future world champion) Nepo.

I am still surprised by this, as English games often tend to be the most positional struggles (especially if Black does not play e5).

Why does the English have this reputation, i.e. what are example games / variations that showcase the aggressive potential of the English opening?

# Answer
One of the reasons mainline openings are "good" is that they are fundamentally strategically sound. You develop your pieces, fight for central control, secure your King, etc. All the things we are taught to do as beginners. Importantly, these are all the "prerequisites" for an attack (See *The Art of Attack in Chess* by Vukovic for more on this idea).

Is the English opening a better choice for attacking chess players than any other top tier opening? No. But is it fundamentally sound? Yes. Because of this, an aggressive player can choose variations that lead to more attacking chances.

Kasparov, who famously preferred active, aggressive play, played the English many times. Here's one fun example from him: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070502

If you are hoping for early tactics, sacrifices, etc. in wide open positions, the English isn't the best choice. But if you don't mind spending some time in the early stages of the game slowly building up the potential attack, it's a great opening.

Here are two more lesser-known examples of interesting attacks in the English:

It's worth noting that because the English usually doesn't lead to early clashes between the White and Black pieces, both sides can be flexible in choosing their setups. This means that if you're playing the English, you can opt for a line that tends to lead to more slow, strategic play, or you can go for a line that prepares for an eventual attack.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Your question asks for variations and that suggests to me that you are thinking along the wrong lines. Certainly there are very few, if any, followups to 1.c4 that lead quickly to sharp tactical play, which may be what comes to your mind when you see the word aggressive. You may be thinking of the numerous e4..e5 gambit lines with many checks and captures that often lead to level endings if both sides know their theory.

I think you would do well to read both those articles again, with an open mind. What both authors are telling you is that it is very hard against 1.c4 for Black to achieve early simplification. This does not mean that you will be able to gain an early initiative by tricky play. It does mean that by move 20 there are likely still to be a lot of pieces on the board and that the two sides have likely drawn up battle lines with conflicting objectives. That is a more realistic concept of aggression. It is an attitude that allows for both sides to show ambition, and aims to create situations in which the stronger fighter will win. I hope this makes sense to you.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, english-opening, aggressive-play, style
---


# Question
Title: Is Behting Study Still Beating Computers?
This is the famous Behting study, first published in the magazine Bohemia in 1906, which is often used as a demonstration that computers can’t solve all positions.

White to move and draw with a very elegant move.

Spoiler:

> 1. Kc6!! g1=Q 2. Nxh4 Qh1+ 3. Nhf3

Question is, is this study still beating engines?

**Clarification:** Suggesting best move, doesn't mean engine understands(or finds) the solution. Without evaluating it 0.00 or =/=, it doesn't mean it's solved. Actually, best move with -4.\** means engine believes that best possible continuation for White is this move, with winning advantage for Black.

Imagine you ask a question to someone about a chess position in which White has a move which is the best and draws. You ask, which move is the best and why, and you get an answer like this: "Best chance is this move, but even if it's White's best chance, it looks losing". And you know that move draws. Would you accept this answer as correct answer? Definitely no.

**I recommend to read:**

**Notes about edits**: As the question turned into a discussion about whether the position solved by engines or not, I revised the question accordingly.

This question is totally about facts, and not opinion based. Some of the answers are opinion-based, but it's not the problem of the question. **It's terribly wrong to close this question, instead of letting people discuss it.**

# Answer
For the record, the soundness of the Behting study has been under a cloud for some time because it is not easy to refute 1 Ng7+ Kg5 2 Nf3+ Kg4 3 Kf5 h3 4 Ke4 g1Q 5 Nxh6+ Kh5 6 Nxg1 h2 7 Nf3 h1Q 8 Nf5 "etc.", but according to recent analysis by GM John Nunn (2012) the study is sound after all.

It should be feasible for a chess engine to reach a 0.00 evaluation because there are only a few thousand drawing positions that need to be evaluated (depending on wK/bQ position, with or without the c/d pawns), and once the search has exhausted that space they'll all evaluate to a draw.

Here's a similar challenge:

```
[Title "NDE 1986 (2nd Prize, Israel Ring 1986)"]
[fen "5k2/1n6/1p3K2/P7/1P2N3/p1P2B2/8/2b5 w - - 0 0"]

```

**White to move and draw.**

*Solution:*

> 1 a6 a2 2 axb7 Bf4 3 Ng5! Bb8! (a1Q 4 Ne6+ Kg8! 5 Nxf4 Qxc3+ 6 Kf5 and Black can't win; 3 . . . Bd6 4 Ne6+ Kg8 5 Nc7! Bxc7 6 Bc4+ draws. So the Bishop crosses the critical square c7, which however White can exploit too:) 4 Nh7+! Ke8 5 Bc6+ Kd8 6 Ng5 Kc7 7 b5! a1Q (Kd6!? 8 Ne4+ Kc7 9 Ng5 repeating) 8 Nf7! positional draw.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I am running SCID on the front and Stockfish 6 on the back. Stockfish is running on 4 cores with a gigabyte of RAM. The computer is an Intel quad-core 3.2GHz i5, 16Gb of RAM, 64-bit OS.

I am not using a tablebase. I am not sure it matters; the first move or two are the hard ones.

```

[title "Behting study and Stockfish 6"]
[fen "8/8/7p/3KNN1k/2p4p/8/3P2p1/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kc6 g1=Q 2.Nxh4 Qa1 3.Nhf3 Qa5 4.Kd6 Qa2 5.Kc5 Qb3 6.Kd4 Qb4 7.Kd5 c3 8.dxc3 Qxc3 9.Ke4 Qc5 10.Kd3 Qd5+ 11.Ke3 Qd1 12.Ke4 Qb1+ 13.Ke3 Qc1+ 14.Kd4 Qf4+ 15.Kd3 Qa4 16.Ke3 Qc2 17.Kd4 Qe2 18.Kd5 Qb5+ 19.Ke4 Qb7+ 20.Kd4 Qc7 21.Ke4 Qb6 22.Kd3 Qa6+ 23.Ke3 Qa3+ 24.Ke4 Qf8 25.Ke3 Qb4 26.Kd3 Qf4 27.Ke2 Qf5 28.Ke3 Qf8 29.Ke4 Qc8 30.Kd5 Qa8+ 31.Kd4 Qb7 32.Ke3 Qd5 33.Kf4 Qb7

```

I think the "no computer can solve this" comment is very dated... the person who said it mentioned Anatoly Karpov...

And as requested (rudely), here's a screen shot.
> 4 votes

# Answer
According to this post by u/dangi12012-1, Behting Study Cracked by Stockfish at depth 70!, Stockfish 12 NNUE evaluated 0.00 after 25 minutes with a powerful 16-core AMD Ryzen 3950X and 58 GB hash.

The post has the full info but here is the final PV:

```
info depth 72 seldepth 23 multipv 1 score cp 0 nodes 459232159581 nps 102464614 hashfull 426 tbhits 0 time 4481861 pv d5c6 g2g1q f5h4 g1a7 h4f3 a7a6 c6c5 c4c3 d2c3 a6a7 c5d6 a7a3 d6e6 a3c3 e6d5 c3c8 d5e4 c8h3 e4d5 h3g3 d5e4

```

After 1. Kc6 g1=Q, Stockfish 14 on Lichess analysis board considers it a draw, but then reconsiders and puts it at -2.5. After dxc3 this is a 7-piece tablebase draw but Lichess analysis doesn't have that.

```
[Title "Stockfish 12 NNUE at depth 72"]
[FEN "8/8/7p/3KNN1k/2p4p/8/3P2p1/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kc6 g1=Q 2. Nxh4 Qa7 3. Nhf3 Qa6+ 4. Kc5 c3 5. dxc3 Qa7+ 6. Kd6 Qa3+ 7. Ke6 Qxc3 8. Kd5 Qc8 9. Ke4 Qh3 10. Kd5 Qg3 11. Ke4

```

---

For what it's worth, I tried it out on my own relatively modest laptop with i7-7700HQ, 8 cores, 16 GB hash and Stockfish 15 NNUE for about 40 minutes and it still gave -4.65 eval, after 18 billion nodes instead of 459 billion. Probably would've benefited a lot from a 7-piece tablebase, or even just the 6-piece one.

```
info depth 69 seldepth 130 multipv 1 score cp -456 nodes 18878194760 nps 8098927 hashfull 691 tbhits 0 time 2330950 pv f5g7 h5g5 e5f3 g5g4 d5e4 h4h3 g7f5 g2g1q f3g1 h3h2 f5h6 g4h5 g1f3 h2h1q h6f5 h5g4 f5e3 g4g3 e3f5 g3f2 f5d4 h1h7 e4d5 h7c7 f3e5 c7a5 d5e4 a5a2 e5g4 f2e1 d4f3 e1e2 g4e5 a2a6 e4d5 a6b5 d5d4 e2f2 d4e4 b5b7 e4d4 f2g3 d4c4 g3f4 c4c5 b7a6 c5d5 a6a5 d5d6 a5d8 d6c5 f4e4 d2d3 e4f4 c5c6 d8f6 c6d5 f6b6 d3d4 b6b3 d5d6 b3a3 d6e6 a3a6 e6d5 a6b6 f3h4 b6d8 d5e6 d8d4 e5g6 f4e4 e6e7 d4a7 e7f6 a7f2 f6e6 f2e3 e6e7 e3e2 e7f7 e2f1 f7e7 e4d5 h4g2 f1a1 g2f4 d5e4 f4e6 a1a7 e7f6 a7f2 f6e7 e4f5 g6f8 f2e3 e7d6 e3d3 d6c6 d3d2 e6c5 d2h6 c5e6 f5e5 c6c7 h6e3 c7c6 e3f3 c6d7 f3f7 d7c6 f7e8 c6c7

```

The current PGN viewer at move 11 doesn't recognize in a valid PGN that Nd4 can only refer to one knight, so move 11 has to be written out.

```
[title "Stockfish 15 NNUE at depth 69"]
[fen "8/8/7p/3KNN1k/2p4p/8/3P2p1/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ng7+ Kg5 2. Nf3+ Kg4 3. Ke4 h3 4. Nf5 g1=Q 5. Nxg1 h2 6. Nxh6+ Kh5 7. Nf3 h1=Q 8. Nf5 Kg4 9. Ne3+ Kg3 10. Nf5+ Kf2 11. Nf5d4 Qh7+ 12. Kd5 Qc7 13. Ne5 Qa5+ 14. Ke4 Qa2 15. Ng4+ Ke1 16. Nf3+ Ke2 17. Nge5 Qa6 18. Kd5 Qb5+ 19. Kd4 Kf2 20. Ke4 Qb7+ 21. Kd4 Kg3 22. Kxc4 Kf4 23. Kc5 Qa6 24. Kd5 Qa5+ 25. Kd6 Qd8+ 26. Kc5 Ke4 27. d3+ Kf4 28. Kc6 Qf6+ 29. Kd5 Qb6 30. d4 Qb3+ 31. Kd6 Qa3+ 32. Ke6 Qa6+ 33. Kd5 Qb6 34. Nh4 Qd8+ 35. Ke6 Qxd4

```

Now, do you count engines using tablebases as solving the study? Stockfish with just the 5-man tablebase (a couple hundred megabytes of relevant files) is able to compute a draw in a few minutes. The eval quickly neutralizes from -4 to 0.0 around depth 45 and stays there for increased depth (tested up to 72).

```
info depth 45 seldepth 54 multipv 1 score cp 0 nodes 2418702985 nps 8967492 hashfull 60 tbhits 3503813 time 269719 pv d5c6 g2g1q f5h4 g1a1 h4f3 a1a8 c6c5 a8a3 c5c4 a3d6 d2d4 d6a6 c4c5 a6e6 d4d5 e6c8 c5d4 c8c7 d5d6 c7d6 d4e4 d6c5 e4d3 c5f2 d3e4 f2e2 e4f4 e2c2 f4g3 c2a4 g3h2 a4f4 h2g2 f4e3 g2g3 e3b3

```

I also left Crystal, a Stockfish derivative designed to solve chess problems, on overnight, but it computes depth much slower than stockfish and didn't solve the study.

```
info depth 57 seldepth 118 multipv 1 score cp -245 nodes 9016985399 nps 9322203 hashfull 519 tbhits 0 time 967259 pv f5g7 h5g5 e5f3 g5g4 g7f5 h4h3 d5e4 g2g1q f3g1 h3h2 f5h6 g4h5 g1f3 h2h1q h6f5 h5g4 f5e3 g4g3 e3f5 g3g2 e4e3 h1c1 f5d4 c1a3 e3f4 a3b4 f4e3 b4b8 f3h4 g2g3 h4f5 g3h3 d4f3 h3g2 f5d4 b8e8 e3f4 e8h5 f4e3 h5d5 f3e1 g2g3 e1f3 d5c5 e3e4 c5h5 d4f5 g3f2 f5d4 h5h1 e4d5 f2g3 d5c4 h1f1 c4d5 g3f4 f3e5 f1g2 d4f3 g2g8 d5d4 g8b3 d4c5 b3a3 c5d5 a3a2 d5d4 a2b2 d4d5 b2b6 d2d3 b6d8 d5e6 d8a5 e6d6 a5b4 d6e6 b4c5 d3d4 c5b6 e6d5 b6b3 d5d6 b3b8 d6c5 b8a7 c5d6 a7a6 d6d5 a6b6 f3h4 b6a5 d5e6 f4e4 e6e7 a5c7 e7e6 c7d8 e5g6 d8b6 e6f7 b6d4 f7e7 d4f2 e7e6 f2f1 e6e7 e4d5 h4g2 f1f2 g2f4 d5e4 f4e6 f2a7 e7f6

```
> 4 votes

# Answer
This has turned into a hot discussion... I take it positively because we need more traffic.

I'm confident all the well written engines will give Kc6 with sufficient thinking time. That's because all other alternatives are even worse. The line starting with Kc6 is the only line that the computer finds with 2 knights vs queen. Everything else results in further material loss and therefore discarded.

Since the engine is able to see Kc6 would be the only move not losing instantly, the puzzle should be considered solved.

It's insane for the Stockfish engine to give a 0.00 score in this kind of position because it is simply not designed for something like this.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, problems
---


title: Syzygy 6 man Tablebase Files Question

text:
# Question
Title: Syzygy 6 man Tablebase Files Question
Is anyone familiar with the .wdl and .dtz formats for the 6 man tablebase that are available?

I already confirmed that both aren't needed, however they both store different information. Goal is to determine which one would fit what I want to do.

-I know there are other forums out there for this. I'm a new member on one of them but trying to see if anyone here is familiar with this is all.

# Answer
> 3 votes
* WDL gives win/draw/loss for a position
* DTZ gives distance to zero for the 50-moves draw rule

Both files are **needed**, absolutely. Chess engines assume both files are there, and would only check one of those at run time. It's your responsibility to make sure you have both files. There's a good opportunity your engine will crash if you don't.

You're giving yourself trouble if you leave out one. **Download them both or do nothing**.

# Answer
> 3 votes
So called "DTZ" syzygy tables are a supplement to WDL ones; without WDL, they're mostly useless.

Stockfish/Cfish will work with WDL only, but then it might be unable to win a difficult won (as per tables) position. "Outside" the tables, that is, as long as you only analyze positions with more pieces than your tables have, "DTZ" syzygy tables are not required.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Stockfish and LCZero can work with WDL without DTZ, but it might not find the optimal way to win under engine playing conditions. If you are only interested in analyzing positions with tablebases, you don't need the DTZ to tell you if a position is won or loss (since WDL already does that), but having DTZ will guarantee the winning/bestplay sequence if the engine cannot figure it out from probing WDL alone.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You should use both if you have the space. From syzygy-tables.info:

> Most of the time (during search) only WDL tables are used. Keep these on SSD storage if you can. DTZ tables are generally only used to finish the final phase of the game ("at the root").

More info at https://www.chessprogramming.org/Syzygy\_Bases

---
Tags: endgame, tablebases
---


# Question
Title: How can I download Syzygy tablebases efficiently?
How can I download Syzygy tablebases (5-man or 6-man) as quickly as possible without clicking hundreds of links at a mirror? Is there a verified torrent available that will probably download faster and use less resources than a mirror?

# Answer
I found out wget supports mirror site listings, so I used

```
wget --mirror --no-parent --no-directories -e robots=off http://tablebase.sesse.net/syzygy/3-4-5/

```

It might take a few tries to download all files since occasionally 403 Forbidden is returned (maybe should wait between requests). Then run `md5sum --check checksum.md5` to ensure everything is all downloaded. Still I think a torrent is a more robust way to download huge files.
> 8 votes

# Answer
This link is for 3+4+5: https://thepiratebay.org/description.php?id=10530043.
As for 6 or 7, I'll try to find them later.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The Internet Archive has torrents for the Syzygy (and other) tablebases

https://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22tablebases%22

The file view gets a little confusing due to being classified as audio, but you will find the torrent files among them.
Syzygy 6-man WDL torrent
Syzygy 6-man DTZ torrent
> 2 votes

---
Tags: tablebases, download-games
---


# Question
Title: If I remove a king from one side, which side has an advantage?
If I remove a king from one side, which side has an advantage? Say, the losing condition will change for that side to "no pieces left".

Removing king = one less way to lose, but an extra piece is an extra piece.

# Answer
Removing one player's king would have two effects:

1. In the endgame the king is notionally worth 4 points as an attacking piece, more than a knight or bishop and almost as much as a rook. That is a massive advantage for the player with the king.

However, as Sigbert Tarrasch said, "*Before the endgame, the Gods have placed the middle game*"

2. In the opening and middle game the player without the king has a massive advantage. Checks and tactics involving the king (pins, skewers, back rank threats) all disappear. The one weakness in the kingless player's position, f2, can generally be defended by moves like f3 (no longer a weakening move, instead it supports the center and prevents a piece like a knight or bishop coming to g4), Nh6 and Qe1 (also lining up the queen against the opponent's king).

The net effect would be to make the game very unbalanced but favouring the player without the king since their advantage comes first.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, kings, advantage
---


# Question
Title: Chess etiquette: Carlsen withdrawing from the tournament
Ben Finegold made this point during his streams, that even if Magnus Carlsen suspects either cheating on Hans Niemann's part or sabotage on the part of a member of his team, he should not have withdrawn.

According to Finegold, it is improper to withdraw from a round robin for such reasons. Furthermore, he says that it is unfair to the organisers, who did nothing wrong.

How would you rate Carlsen's actions, relative to your understanding of chess ethics?

Or perhaps more importantly to your assessment of the threats or benefits that this will pose to the business side or the organisational side of high-level chess?

# Answer
> How would you rate Carlsen's actions, relative to your understanding of chess ethics?

The ethical side really boils down to the question, "who is hurt by these actions".

If it is a Swiss tournament and he just silently withdraws then none of the other players are affected. The player tells the arbiter he is withdrawing, the arbiter marks him as unavailable for pairing in the pairing program and the tournament continues. If it counts as bad publicity (unlikely) then the sponsors of the tournament may be damaged but normally all extra publicity counts as good publicity. So, for instance, rage-quitting Titled Tuesday punishes nobody.

But this was a round robin tournament. An early withdrawal meant players who were paired to play him in later rounds had the chance to play him removed and ended up playing one game fewer. Any player doing this in a norm tournament (a round robin tournament set up to allow players the chance to achieve title norms) would basically ruin their own reputation. They would never be invited to such a tournament again because they likely ruined the norm chances of the norm seekers who paid good money for the chance to achieve a title norm.

Although none of the players at this level are norm seekers his actions still caused disruption and harm to the players and the tournament.

However in this case there is an additional ethically bad element. His actions were a silent (maybe not so silent) accusation of cheating. The method was cowardly. Instead of coming straight out and presenting evidence that his opponent had cheated he implied that using innuendo.

Normally in a tournament if a player comes to the arbiter or organizer and accuses another player of cheating that accusation is kept secret unless or until definitive proof is obtained that that the player was cheating. To publish unsubstantiated accusations like that amounts to defamation and in some countries could result in legal action. It looks like Carlsen came as close to that line as possible without actually crossing it.
> 24 votes

---
Tags: tournament, etiquette, cheating
---


# Question
Title: Are there any strict rules which can be imposed on Magnus Carlsen for resigning on purpose against Hans?
There has already been a lot of chess drama going on between Hans and Magnus after Carlsen withdrew from Sinquefield Cup 2022(before losing his last match against Hans). There have been many theories/speculations about cheating by Hans.

After all of this started the Generations Cup. Yesterday Magnus Carlsen faced Hans Niemann in the Round 6th of the ongoing Generations Cup. Magnus resigned after move two and left his room. This act by Carlsen heated up the situation very quickly. Many people are against him for this "**Poor sportsmanship**" behavior. Some even consider this as breaking FIDE's rules of **respecting players** and their **sandbagging policy**.

Are there any strict FIDE rules for this? If yes, is it possible that FIDE can take any action against Magnus Carlsen for his behavior against Hans?

# Answer
> Are there any strict FIDE rules for this?

Strictly speaking this is an online tournament organized by chess24.com and is not FIDE rated. That means it is not under FIDE jurisdiction nevertheless FIDE Laws of Chess apply.

There is no rule which says you are not allowed to resign after making only one move. The only rule which might apply is in **Article 11: The conduct of the players** where it says:

> 11.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

This is a judgment call which would have to be made by the chief arbiter in consultation with the organizer(s). In this case I cannot see chess24.com making any decision against Carlsen for the simple reason that he is a business partner. They may also believe that the extra publicity it attracts is good for their business and the advertising they are selling off the back of the tournament.

> is it possible that FIDE can take any action against Magnus Carlsen for his behavior against Hans?

Not for this tournament because it is not a FIDE tournament. FIDE have no control over the players or the tournament.

> Will FIDE take any action after Magnus Carlsen resigned on purpose against Hans?

Currently for a game to be rated there has to be at least one move by each player. Carlsen was careful not to break this rule even though the tournament is not FIDE rated.

There is nothing that FIDE can do directly (because they don't have jurisdiction over this tournament) but they could contemplate a rule change. If they did this it would take some time and have to be considered carefully.

The last time they did something like this was more than 40 years ago. In the last round of tournament English GM Tony Miles was paired against Stewart Reuben. Miles only needed a draw to win the tournament and generous first prize. The night before they agreed to a draw and on the day they played no moves and just wrote the result. At the time this was not against the rules.

This result also gave Reuben a share of second prize. Initially the prizes were awarded but when the organizers realized what had happened they reclaimed the prizes and cancelled the result of that game. It caused a storm and resulted in FIDE changing the rules to require at least one move be made by each side.
> 11 votes

---
Tags: fide, carlsen, cheating
---