# Question
Title: Is the following position a fortress ? Or can White win?
White to move. Can White win?

```
[FEN "5Q2/kp6/1p6/1P2K3/r7/1P5/8/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
This looks like **a draw**.

* First, the pawn ending (1.Qa8 Ka8 2.ba4 Kb8 3.Kd6 Kc8) is dead drawn: the bK stays on c8/d8/c7 and the wK cannot approach. 1.ba4 is an immediate stalemate, so White has to try and win with Q+2p vs R+2p.
* Without the White pawns (and you may remove the bPb7 as well), this is a well-known fortress: Black just plays Rc5-a5-c5 ad aeternam and White cannot break through.
* The b-pawns seem to improve White chances by denying the bR two safe squares to alternate between. In that case the standard winning procedure is to zugzwang Black, force their rook to an unsafe square, and either fork it or use its awkward position to enter with the wK.
* However, is that particular case, the only way to zugzwang the bR into moving is by stalemating the bK (on a7, with the queen on the last rank). However, in that case the bR doesn't *need* a safe square anymore: it can sacrifice itself by checking the wK, since capturing it would lead to stalemate.

Therefore, White has no realistic prospects of breaking the blockade and the game is a draw.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I think it's a draw. I didn't find a winning strategy for white here.

```
[FEN "5Q2/kp6/1p6/1P2K3/r7/1P6/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qf7 Rg4 2. Kd6 Rg5 3. Kc7 Rc5+ 4. Kd7 Kb8 5. Qf8+ Ka7 6. b4 Rc7+ 7. Kd6 Rd7+ 8. Ke6 Rd2 9. Qf5 Re2+ 10. Kd6 Re1 11. Qc2 Kb8 12. Qc7+ Ka7 13. Qc4 Rh1 14. Qa2+ Kb8 15. Qg8+ Ka7 16. Qg5 Rh8 17. Qe3 Rh1 18. Qa3+ Kb8 19. Qf3 Rh6+ 20. Ke7 Rh7+ 21. Ke6 Ka7

```
> 0 votes

# Answer
Not 100% sure but I would put my queen on D5, to cover both pawns, then I would march my king up and try to pick off black's pawn on B6, if it'S white to move I would start with QD7, then followed by QD5 then work my king to black's pawns. it really depends, if you're playing a computer, a person or a computer via person.

\*I think it goes without saying, but try not to get skewered
> 0 votes

---
Tags: computer-chess
---


# Question
Title: Understanding the Importance and Definitions of Classical, Blitz, and Rapid Chess World Championships
I'm intrigued by the various formats of chess world championships, specifically the classical, blitz, and rapid tournaments. My understanding is that each of these championships holds a distinct place in the chess world, but I'm looking to deepen my understanding of their significance and how they are perceived among top-level players.

How is the Classical Chess World Championship format viewed in comparison to Blitz and Rapid championships? What significance does it hold for professional players, and how does it impact their standing or legacy in the chess community?

How significant are each of these tournaments for grandmasters, and which is more commonly associated with top-level grandmasters?

# Answer
> 1 votes
From my understanding, it really boils down to how your brain works, how great is your memory, do you prefer to trade off pieces and battle it out in the endgame, are you very strong with openings, are middle game tactics where you shine.

Grandmasters aside, each type (Classical, Rapid, Blitz, I don't consider bullet chess) plays into a different way of thinking and a different way of playing depending on your, or a particular player's style, each would either play to or against a player's abilities.

Personally I prefer Rapid, my brain is too slow for blitz and I can't, focus to the degree that Classical requires, so Rapid is my preferred format. I'm about 1500 in Rapid and I've beaten 1700+ blitz players, in rapid, but I do not Stand a chance against a 1000 ranked blitz player.

To answer your question, it just depends; generally people in all walks of life will say that what they are doing is the best, so if you ask an old Russian master they'll tell you that Blitz rots your brain and is stupid, if you ask a blitz champion they'll tell you the opposite.

However I do believe that it is generally accepted that classical chess is the gold standard of chess.

---
Tags: grandmaster, world-championship, blitz, rapid
---


# Question
Title: For a chess learner, isn't spatial phase after time phase?
In their Steps Method, Brunia and Wijgerden identify the chess development of a child as several stages, namely Material phase, Spatial phase and Time phase in that order (see the image at the end).

Although there is overlap between the phases, progress could be made only in this order according to them.

They also recommend not to try and explain a concept in a phase before the student at least starts transitioning to that phase. Hence, *the order of the phases is important*.

Here, the material phase corresponds to the force (or simply called material) principle of chess. In 'Play winning chess', Seirawan & Silman use this as the order of the principles: force, time, space, pawn structure, (which seems a more intuitive order to me).

Assuming the phases should apply for beginners (not necessarily kids),
**Doesn't time phase come before spatial phase?** or does this vary from person to person?

# Answer
It is probably worth starting by giving some concrete examples of what is meant by the material, spatial and time phases.

```
[Title "Material vs Spatial phase"]
[fen "6k2/ppp1rppp/3b4/8/8/QR5P/PPP2PP/6K1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Bxa3? {Played by a beginner still stuck firmly in the material phase} (1...Re1# {Only really possible once the player has progressed to the spatial phase})

```

How often in this kind of position do we see beginners grab the queen because it "evens up the point count"? They are stuck in the material phase. Only once they have progressed to the spatial phase do they see and prefer to play the checkmate. Hopefully they progress to this stage quite quickly.

However mastering the time phase is much more difficult. Many intermediate level players still struggle with this phase. Consider this simple endgame where the result depends on who moves first. This requires a grasp of the time phase which usually comes much later than the spatial phase.

```
[Title "Time Phase - white to play and win, black to play and draw"]
[fen "4k3/8/8/8/8/8/4P3/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kd2 (1. null Ke7 2. Kd2 Ke6 3. Ke3 Ke5 4. Kd3 Kd5 5. e4+ Ke5 6. Ke3 Ke6 7. Kf4 Kf6 8. e5+ Ke6 9. Ke4 Ke7 10. Kf5 Kf7 11. e6+ Ke7 12. Ke5 Ke8 13. Kf6 Kf8 14. e7+ Ke8 15. Ke6=) Ke7 2. Ke3 Ke6 3. Ke4 Kf6 4. Kd5 Kf7 5. e4 Ke7 6. Ke5 Kf7 7. Kd6 Ke8 8. e5 Kd8 9. e6 Ke8 10. e7 Kf7 11. Kd7

```

> For a chess learner, isn't spatial phase after time phase?

No, the time phase is much more difficult to master. Many weaker players never get that far.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning, books, psychology, teaching
---


# Question
Title: Can a draw be claimed if proven to be inevitable but no time remaining to actually pull it off?
There is an interesting chess problem which made me think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzOKknAi684

The player at a disadvantage is aiming for a draw. He can achieve this because there is a set of moves which can always prevent the opponent, and it will sooner or later result in threefold repetition. However, as there are many variations of moves possible, the opponent can drag on the game for many moves, varying them so that the threefold repetition occurs after lots of moves.

So if I was in such a position and had severe time trouble, so severe that I would run out of time before the threefold repetition inevitably occurs (assume we aren't playing with incremental time after every move), could I stop the clock, go to the arbiter, and prove that it is a draw? It's not the same as the opponent not having enough pieces to force a win (which I know can be declared as a draw).

# Answer
> 6 votes
> Can a draw be claimed if proven to be inevitable but no time remaining to actually pull it off?

It depends what you mean by "inevitable". If there is no sequence of legal moves which allows your opponent to checkmate you then, yes, the draw is inevitable and the game ends in a draw immediately.

However, the draw that you claim is inevitable in the linked video is not inevitable. It depends on you finding a number of good moves. Even if they were obvious moves you still couldn't claim a draw. Even if you had to play really stupid, bad moves to let your opponent checkmate you, you still couldn't claim a draw. You have to actually play the moves that get you to the draw in the time remaining.

Here is what the FIDE Laws of Chess say:

> 5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

# Answer
> 3 votes
This answer suggests the answer is "yes", but you need the intervention of the arbiter, "no increment" is a hard requirement, and you must not be playing blitz. You must have less than two minutes left, and you must be willing to accept a draw (i.e. you cannot say "I have at least a draw, but might still win").

From the FIDE Rules of Chess:

> **Guidelines III. Games without increment including Quickplay Finishes**
>
> III.1 A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the remaining moves must be completed in a finite time.
>
> III.2.1 The Guidelines below concerning the final period of the game including Quickplay Finishes, shall only be used at an event if their use has been announced beforehand.
>
> III.2.2 These Guidelines shall apply only to standard chess and rapid chess games without increment and not to blitz games.
>
> ...
>
> III.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that an increment extra five seconds be introduced for both players. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If the offer refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.
>
> III.5 If Article III.4 does not apply and the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the chessclock (see Article 6.12.2). He may claim on the basis that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means:
>
> III.5.1 If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal means, he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
>
> III.5.2 If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible, in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after the flag of either player has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the opponent of the player whose flag has fallen cannot win by normal means, or that he was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.

Since you can prove a draw, you can argue that the opponent cannot win by normal means, invoking III.5.

---
Tags: draw, time-control
---


# Question
Title: Transferring data from chess engine to statistical software
How do I extract data such as board configuration, engine evaluation, time spent per move etc from an engine into a statistical software package like stata? I am currently trying to investigate the effects of risk preferences on deviations from optimal play and know how to run statistical regression analysis but have no experience with chess datasets.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I am not sure about risk preferences, but here is an example that you can play around.

The features are the engine's best score, the human move score, etc. And the result could be your target.

There are only two positions as your dataset in this example. But you can extend this.

I use python chess library to create this system and use stockfish engine to analyze the positions.

```
import chess
import chess.engine
import pandas as pd

pd.set_option('display.max_colwidth', 1000)

# Positions and human move in the actual game.
FENS = [
    ['8/3b2pk/4qp1p/p2r4/1r1B1Q2/4P1P1/PP1R3P/K1R5 w - - 4 34', 'c1c7', '0-1'],
    ['r2q1rk1/ppp1nppp/1b6/3np3/6b1/1BPP1N1P/PP1N1PP1/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 12', 'g4h5', '1-0']
]

# Engine's path
STOCKFISH_PATH = r'F:\Chess\Engines\stockfish\sf16/sf16pop.exe'

def analyze_fen(fen, timesec=1.0, rootmoves=None):
    """Analyze the given fen position."""
    engine_hash_size = 128  # in MB
    engine_threads = 1      # number of threads
    board = chess.Board(fen)

    engine = chess.engine.SimpleEngine.popen_uci(STOCKFISH_PATH)
    engine.configure({"Hash": engine_hash_size, "Threads": engine_threads})
    info = engine.analyse(board, chess.engine.Limit(time=timesec), root_moves=rootmoves)
    engine.quit()

    best_move = info['pv'][0]
    score = info['score'].white().score(mate_score=32000)

    return best_move, score

def main():
    data = []
    analysis_timesec = 2.0

    for fen, human_move, result in FENS:
        # Get the best engine move and its score.
        engine_best_move, engine_best_score = analyze_fen(fen, timesec=analysis_timesec)

        # Get the score of the move by human.
        human_chess_move = chess.Move.from_uci(human_move)
        _, human_move_score = analyze_fen(fen, timesec=analysis_timesec, rootmoves=[human_chess_move])

        # Calculate the error.
        if engine_best_move == human_chess_move:
            error = 0
        else:
            error = abs(engine_best_score - human_move_score)
        data.append([fen, str(engine_best_move), engine_best_score, str(human_chess_move), human_move_score, result, error])

    df = pd.DataFrame(data, columns=['FEN', 'EMove', 'EScore', 'HMove', 'HScore', 'Result', 'Error'])
    print(df)

if __name__ == '__main__':
    main()

```

## Output

The scores are in WPOV (White Point of View), meaning if score is positive, the position assessment is better for white. If score is negative, it is better for black.

At index 0, the engine's best score is -24. It favors slightly for black. But the human move or the actual move played in the game is c1c7 and it is a blunder. The position assessment of that move is -504 CP or centipawn which put black in a winning position. The error is 480 which is just the absolute score difference.

```
                                                                   FEN EMove  EScore HMove  HScore Result  Error
0              8/3b2pk/4qp1p/p2r4/1r1B1Q2/4P1P1/PP1R3P/K1R5 w - - 4 34  f4c7     -24  c1c7    -504    0-1    480
1  r2q1rk1/ppp1nppp/1b6/3np3/6b1/1BPP1N1P/PP1N1PP1/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 12  g4f3      44  g4h5     128    1-0     84

```

---
Tags: engines, software, stockfish, statistics
---


# Question
Title: Different chess improvement strategies depending on age
Adult chess improvers are different from children in many ways and have different strength and weaknesses. Also, their life situation is very different (e.g. much time and little money vs. little time and much money).

However, this rarely seems to be considered by courses, chess improvement plans, books, and other materials. The readers are given a 'one size fits all' solution/advice. It works, but it could certainly be better or more efficient, if the situation and different strengths and weaknesses of the learner would be factored in.

**Are there any resources with explicit guidance how to adapt training for children or adults, taking into account their strengths and weaknesses?**

For example, teaching a strong child the Najdorf as their new main opening may be reasonable. It'll absorb the variations much more easily into its memory and get an intuitive 'feeling' for the Sicilian positions.

However, it is more difficult for adults to learn new things and memorising and understanding concrete Najdorf move orders would take a lot of effort.

Not to mention being able to understand and handle the resulting positions well.

In this case, their little time would be much better spent on practising other skills, learning a simpler opening instead with easy to remember moves, common structures and plans, even if it is an opening that a child would call 'boring'.

In my impression, adult improvers are more willing to learn something even if it is temporarily not exciting to work with, they tend to think more logically and abstractly. However, their brains are not that plastic anymore, and they probably will not develop the same level of pattern recognition, visualization and intuition.

Children pick up concepts more easily and 'on the go'. Their knowledge will be more implicit, whereas one needs to explain to an adult improver what a 'bad bishop' is in explicit terms.

Children want to play 'fun' chess, wild attacks, sacrifices, traps, while adults are often very materialistic and cautious.

# Answer
> 3 votes
> Are there any resources with explicit guidance how to adapt training for children or adults, taking into account their strengths and weaknesses?

Most people learn and do most of their improvement as children / teenagers and so there is a vast supply of material aimed at this younger age group. However, there is almost nothing for older adults despite this age group having much more money.

The one source I found for us greybeards and oldies is the book "*Chess for Life*" by GM Matthew Sadler and WIM Natasha Reagan, both of whom are well past the first flush of youth. The format of the book is a number of interviews with older players, varying in age between their 50s and their 80's, asking them how they have changed their game, their preparation and approach to competitive chess as they have aged.

Most of them are professional chess players who have played all their life but there is one exception, an amateur who stopped playing when he was 15 and only resumed playing in his late 40's after he had made his millions as a businessman and retired in his early 40's. Over the course of about 10 years Terry Chapman improved about 200 points to a rating of 2331 when he was 57.

The Terry Chapman interview is very interesting and highly instructive for us older players. Here are a couple of extracts.

> *Have you made deliberate changes to your game over the years?*

> TC: My strenghts and weaknesses are completely different from when I was a teenager. Then I rarely had any idea what I was supposed to be doing in a position, but I did it pretty well. I've always thought of myself as a non-attacking player. I'd rather win a pawn and then finish the game off in the endgame than mate my opponent. I've tried to at least enjoy attacking more and become more confident.
>
> The information available enables one to have strong preparation and there are lots of resources to let you have a better strategic understanding. My general understanding of chess is much better than when I was 15.

> *What work did you do on chess when you were making your comeback?*

> TC: One thing to do was read some books and extend and update my knowledge of chess. My chess education was incomplete. There was lots about chess I didn't know. I didn't know dynamism from the back of a bus! I remember reading the second volume of Euwe and Kramer on the Middlegame from Wimbledon library when I was 13. Wonderful set of insights but unfortunately I never read the other volume! Watson's books, Jonathan Rowson's books are really good. Aagard's book on attacking was also very good. He analyses attacking as a technique. I could get my mind round that: if A, B and C then you attack.

# Answer
> 1 votes
With the COVID-19 pandemic, Queen's Gambit miniseries, and various news stories bringing the popularity of chess to what seems an all time high over the past few years, there has been an increase in resources for adults wishing to improve their skill at the game. I'm sure I'll miss some of these resources, but will mention a few here, in addition to the *Chess for Life* book mentioned in Brian Towers' answer.

The Perpetual Chess Podcast has had an adult improver series since before the pandemic. In those episodes, NM Ben Johnson interviews people who have made improvements in their chess games as adults, discussing how they increased their ratings. These folks are usually not top level players such as IM's or GM's, but instead players who have improved a few hundred points after achieving adulthood. In other episodes, he often asks his guests about their background and how their game developed. When interviewing top coaches, he often asks if they teach adults and what their techniques and recommendations are if they do.

Following along with the above, Johnson wrote a book specifically aimed at adult improvers which was released after this question was asked. Its title is *Perpetual Chess Improvement*. In the book, Johnson summarizes the advice he has heard from his guests that has been aimed at adults. Early in the book, the author presents four pillars of chess improvement that are (nearly) universally agreed on:

* Play serious games
* Review your games
* Practice tactics
* Find community that will help keep your interest and help you improve

Through the remaining chapters of the book Johnson takes topics one at a time and presents different - sometimes opposing - points of view as they were given by different people who appeared on the show. At the end of chapters, he provides his recommendations - although those recommendations may have a caveat, e.g. he suggests that beginners gain a basic understanding of opening principles so they can start a game without getting into trouble, but not go deep; however, if a particular person really loves openings and doesn't like studying other aspects of the game, then it is better for them to study openings than do something they detest. There's even a chapter on playing against children! I've read the first few chapters and think it's pretty good.

Daniel Lona, an adult chess improver himself, has a business called The Adult Chess Academy. I've not become a customer of this business, but I do listen to his Chess Experience podcast. I don't find it as good as Perpetual Chess, but do get something out of it most times I listen.

Chess Goals, is a business started by NM Matt Jensen. Jensen is a statistical analyst in his day job and used statistical means to put together plans for people looking to get better at chess. He also has several courses on his web site, mostly on openings.

The Chess Journeys podcast is hosted by an adult improver named Kevin Scull. He and his guests discuss their highs, plateaus, and "pits of despair" as they work to get better at the game and how they deal with those events. There doesn't seem to be a website dedicated to the podcast, but it is available via several podcast distributors.

---
Tags: learning, teaching
---


# Question
Title: What is the source of this famous quote often attributed to Mikhail Tal?
"**There are two types of sacrifices in chess, sound ones and my own.**"

I have often encountered this amusing quotation often attributed to Tal in my reading and in online discourse. I have often wondered whether a reliable written source referrence to this quotation actually exists.

# Answer
Edward Winter, the chess historian, at the end of his page about Mikhail Tal asks the same question:

> As shown in A Unique Chess Writer, page 171 of Dimitrije Bjelica’s Wonderful world of chess quotes Mikhail Tal:
>
> > ‘There are two kind of sacrifices – the corrects ones, and mine’s.’
>
> Before being tossed into the Bjelica mangling machine, the Tal quote was something like:
>
> > ‘There are two kinds of sacrifices – sound ones, and mine.’
>
> We write ‘something like’ because other wordings can be found, such as ‘two types of sacrifice’, but the above version is what Anthony Saidy gave on page 303 of the June 1973 Chess Life & Review. However, he merely reported there that Tal ‘once said’ it.
>
> Chess literature teems with things that players purportedly ‘once said’, ‘said on one occasion’, ‘used to say’, ‘liked to say’ and other vague variants, but what is the truth about the remark ascribed to Tal? When did he say, or write, such a thing, and in which language? When was it first recorded in print? What was the context? Did it relate to a specific game? What indication, if any, did Tal give that such a statement was made in jest (or, as anecdotalists like to say, ‘with a twinkle in his eye’)?

So earliest source for this quotation is Saidy's article in Chess Life & Review, but even this one is based on "once said".
> 2 votes

---
Tags: history, reference-request, quotations, tal
---


# Question
Title: What are some of the best lines against the Queen's Gambit?
As Black, I frequently struggle to find effective strategies against 1.d4 d5 2.c4.

While chess engines like Stockfish offer move suggestions, they often lack the underlying concepts and benefits of these moves.

I wish to decline the gambit, but what are the most optimal lines to do so?

# Answer
If you start with **1. ... d5** you have two main choices: the Slav defence with **1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6** and the Queen's Gambit Declined (**1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6**).

## The Slav Defence

The obvious difference between Slav and QGD is that c6 doesn't block the light squared bishop in. The less obvious difference is that your queenside in Slav with Bf5 is a bit wobblier than in QGD, since your *b7* isn't protected.

You have a choice between:

* very sharp Semi-Slav lines (they can also be reached through QGD and many other move orders): **1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6**. It's a very theoretical opening with many many sacrifices, so it will require quite some work to learn.
* calmer classical Slav lines, but where white can get annoying lasting pressure.

There are also Schlehter and Chebanenko lines, but they are a rarer choice and I believe that Schlehter is a bit suspect.

The problem with Slav is **exchange Slav**. If you are in a must win situation and your opponent goes for it, you will have (at higher levels) a hard time finding any winning chances. The structure is too symmetrical and an open c-file facilitates heavy piece exchanges. On the bright side, white also has practically no winning chances.

For more about Slav check out IM Andras on YouTube. It's his recommendation in his Chessable courses, so he has also dedicated many instructive videos too it.

## Queen's Gambit Declined

This is the most classical and principled approach. I think no matter which opening you choose, you should learn this one first and play it a few times at least.

I think best is to learn step by step, starting with historical approaches and progressing to modern TMB system.

As you see the big idea of all these approaches is for black to exchange off a few pieces, thus offsetting his space disadvantage and equalizing. If you want something sharper, you can also find it in the QGD:

However, as usual, the sharper the line is, the more theory is required.

You will see in high level games that a lot of the time these positions are reached via the **1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5** move order (after **3. Nc3** black would play **3. ... Bb4**, going for the very reputable Nimzo-Indian defence). This is because black wants to lessen the sting of the annoying **Queen's Gambit Exchange** variation. On the plus side, QGD exchange is not drawish at all compared to Slav exchange. On the minus side, it's very very dangerous. White has two strong plans:

1. Pushing his *b-pawn*, attempting to undermine your *c-pawn*.
2. Playing **Ne2-f3-e4** with a strong center.

The above move-order avoids the second plan, since white cannot play **f3** with a knight already on *f3*.

Don't forget also to prepare something against the Catalan. I think lines with **Bb4+** are stronger than white players think and a bit less theoretical than mainline Open and Closed Catalans.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Even accepting the gambit is fine, just don't try to hold onto your extra pawn, the queen's gambit is not really technically a gambit. Black end's up in trouble when they waste tempo trying to hold onto the material advantage. Since the Netflix special a lot of players have been playing it, but my suspicion is that generally players who play the gambit are more familiar with the declined lines than the accepted ones.

I say accept the gambit, write off your extra pawn, develop, castle and play chess.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: opening, queens-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Is There a Limit on the Number of Rated Tournaments a Chess Player Can Attend in a Month?
I'm an enthusiastic chess player looking to participate in more rated tournaments to improve my ranking and gain experience. However, I'm curious if there's any sort of limitation on the number of rated tournaments a player can attend in a single month.

Does the FIDE (International Chess Federation) or any national chess federation impose restrictions on the frequency of participation in rated tournaments? Are there any rules or considerations regarding player fatigue, tournament integrity, or rating manipulation that would limit the number of tournaments one can play in a month?

# Answer
For FIDE you need to check Rating Regulations.

I believe that there is no such limit, unless I interpret `3.1 There must be no more than 12 hours play in one day. This is calculated based on games that last 60 moves, although games played using increments may last longer.` wrongly. I believe this part only pertains to tournament organizers - that is, that no tournament should schedule so many rounds in one day, that play is expected to last more than 12 hours.

Anyway I think you will find it very impractical too attend so many tournaments monthly. Standard time control tournaments are in most countries organized only seldom, especially if you aren't a kid anymore (since then you cannot play in scholastic tournaments, which are the most common type). As such tournaments mean a big drain of time (read vacation days) and money (travel isn't cheap).

If you want regular OTB games check if chess association in your country/region or club organizes Leagues, they are a bit more practical.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: fide, rating, tournament
---


# Question
Title: Can Winning a Game in a First Rated Tournament Result in a Lower Rating than Not Playing?
I'm curious about a specific scenario in chess rating systems, particularly for a player attending their first rated tournament. Is it possible that for an unrated player, winning a game in their first-rated tournament could actually result in a lower initial rating than if they had not played that game?

I understand that chess ratings are calculated based on the performance of players in rated games, but I'm unclear on how this applies to unrated players entering their first tournaments. Specifically, are there circumstances under which winning a game could negatively impact the initial rating assigned to a new player?

# Answer
To gain first FIDE rating you need at least 5 games in 26 months against FIDE rated opponents. Tournaments where you scored 0 aren't counted, and you only get rating if your first rating is at least 1400 (based on rating changes from this year - all FIDE players rated under 2000 are getting rating increase, so 1400 will be new rating floor). Maximum first rating is 2200.

For first rating you take average rating of your opponents and add part from score.

To find such an example as you ask for we can use FIDE initial rating calculator:

## 1. You played and won against 5 players rated 2000 and 1 player rated 1400:

Your average opponent was 1900, you scored 6 points out of 6 games, so your first rating is 1900+120=**2020**.

## 2. You played and won against 5 players rated 2000:

Your average opponent was 2000, you scored 5 points out of 5 games, so your first rating is 2000+100=**2100**.
> 4 votes

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


title: Is there a double-forced mate position?

text:
# Question
Title: Is there a double-forced mate position?
A usual forced mate position is where the winning player can play in a way that ensures checkmate, **no matter what (legal) moves the opponent makes** (unless the game ends due to a non-play reason, i.e. resignation, draw accepted, time ran out.)

What I'm asking about here is what I'll call a double-forced mate: A position where checkmate is ensured no matter what (legal) moves **either** player makes.

With this rule alone we can find a position such as this, where white has only one legal move, resulting in checkmate. Let's call this type 1.

# Type 1:

```
[FEN "K1k5/1q6/P7/B3N3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. axb7#

```

The only option is `axb7#`. However, this isn't too satisfying as a "double" forced mate, as there was only a single possible move to continue. We can explore positions that have multiple possibilities, but still ensure checkmate absolutely.

# Type 2:

```
[FEN "k7/2QQQQQQ/KQ1QQQQQ/QQQ1QQQQ/QQQQ1QQQ/QQQQQ1QQ/QQQQQQ1Q/QQQQQQQ1 w - - 0 1"]

```

White has many legal moves, but every one of them results in an immediate checkmate. Still, I feel this question isn't quite answered, as in a true double-forced checkmate, both players should play a role. (Also, this position clearly isn't possible from a standard board start. And even if it were, it doesn't seem that it could be achieved without first creating a stalemate.) Let's finally look to type 3.

# Type 3:

The *true* double-forced mate: A position where checkmate is ensured no matter what (legal) moves **either** player makes, however there is at least some line where both players make a move. Meaning not every legal ply in the start position is an immediate checkmating move.

Do you know of (or can you find) any such chess positions of (type 3) double-forced mate? Or can you prove that this is not possible?

Also, share if you have any interesting or more plausible examples of type 1 and 2.

# Answer
> 23 votes
Indeed, there are many possible positions in which all mates are forced on the first ply. Since you ask not for that, I shall provide examples with more than one move by both sides.

Here is the known, and overall, length record for both sides having multiple legal moves since you said that a single line "isn't too satisfying."

```
[Title "Alexey Khanyan, Tim Krabbe's Website Diary Entry #267 2008, Mate In 11 Moves/22 Plies"]
[FEN "4Q2Q/4r3/4n1n1/1bbK1krn/RR1RR1RR/2qn1R1n/4n1nN/Q3Q3 b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... Ng2f4+ 2. Rfxf4+ N2xf4+ 3. Rgxf4+ Nh3xf4+ 4. Rhxf4+ Ndxf4+ 5. Rxf4+ Nhxf4+ 6. Rxf4+ Ngxf4+ 7. Rxf4+ Nxf4+ 8. Rxf4+ Kxf4+ 9. Qee5+ Qxe5+ 10. Qaxe5+ Rgxe5+ 11. Qxe5+ Rxe5+ 12. Qxe5#

```

Source: Diary Entry #267

Additionally, I know of this simple problem that illustrates it with either player giving mate.

```
[Title "Eugene B. Cook, The Chess Amateur 1926, Mate In For White And Black"]
[FEN "Bk6/1P6/1P3p2/8/8/2P3p1/6p1/6Kb w - - 0 1"]

```

Lastly, be sure to check out a funny mutual zugzwang position in this CSE question by the user @Peter, in which both sides are forced to let the other mate them!

# Answer
> 8 votes
Rewan Demontay already has a great answer. However, I would also like to add this 'self-solving' chess problem from Tim Krabbé's Chess Diary #267. Here, all moves are forced and will lead to a checkmate. The composer's full name comes from chess problem databases.

```
[Title "Vilhelm Röpke, Skakbladet 1942, Mate In 6"]
[FEN "K1k5/P1Pp4/1p1P4/8/p7/P2P4/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. d4 b5 2. d5 b4 3. axb4 a3 4. b5 a2 5. b6 a1=Q 6. b7#

```

Although it does not completely satisfy your type 3 requirement that checkmate is not guaranteed in the first ply, I think it is a nice little puzzle that has some similarities with your question.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Inspired by Thijs van Ede's answer, I've modified the pattern from Chess Diary #267

```
[FEN "K1k5/P1Pp4/3P4/1P6/1P6/8/5p2/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. b6 f1=B 2. b7# (2. b5 Bg2+ 3. b7+ Bxb7#)

```

This position features something rather strange. Still according to the rules, checkmate is ensured no matter what legal moves either player makes. However, it is not guaranteed **which** player shall deliver checkmate. The outcome depends on what piece black promotes to.

In any case, white can just push `b6` and `b7` to mate before black can respond. However if white delays with `b6` followed by `b5`, black can save themself and checkmate white by choosing the queen or bishop. See the example line or try it yourself on lichess.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> A position where checkmate is ensured no matter what (legal) moves either player makes.

This definition does not specify that in all variations, the same side delivers checkmate. If the only requirement is that checkmate *by one side or the other* is inevitable, and that a drawn outcome is impossible, then the position below fits the bill.

```
[FEN "8/pp1p1p1p/kp6/8/KP6/PP6/3P1P1P/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

This position was originally designed by Noam Elkies in response to a different question. Imagine a position in which I have a mate in 1, but instead I play a different move that gives my opponent a mate in 1. Call such a move a *worst-possible blunder* (WPB). Problem: Design a position and a long sequence of consecutive WPBs.

---
Tags: checkmate, problems, forced-move
---


# Question
Title: What Distinguishes Supergrandmasters from Grandmasters in Chess?
I have been following professional chess for a while and often come across terms like "grandmaster" and "super grandmaster." While I understand that both are titles indicating a high level of skill in chess, I am curious about the specific differences between these two titles.

What are the criteria or achievements that separate a super grandmaster from a grandmaster? Is this distinction official or more informal within the chess community?

# Answer
> 16 votes
"Grandmaster" (GM) is an official FIDE title; "super grandmaster" is not, and is an informal term. It is often used to denote players with FIDE ratings of 2700+ (with this definition, you can view a list of super grandmasters at 2700chess.com), but this is not a hard-and-fast rule. The term seems to have arisen because there are now over two thousand grandmasters worldwide, and many people have a desire to distinguish the "best of the best" from "mere" grandmasters.

For women, there is a separate woman grandmaster (WGM) title available, with different requirements. Generally speaking, it is easier (for a woman) to attain a WGM title than a GM title.

Interestingly, in backgammon, the (relatively recently formed) Backgammon Masters Awarding Body (BMAB) does have an official "super grandmaster" title. When the BMAB was initially formed, "Grandmaster 1" was the highest possible title, but as more and more players achieved that title, they decided to add more titles at the upper end.

---
Tags: rating, terminology, grandmaster, titles, super-grandmaster
---


# Question
Title: Consequences of Missing a Single Game in a Rated Chess Tournament
I am participating in a rated chess tournament that spans multiple rounds, and I have a specific query regarding attendance. Suppose I have played the first 9 rounds of the tournament, but due to unforeseen circumstances, I am unable to attend the 10th round. However, I plan to return and play in the 11th round. My questions are:

What are the consequences of missing just one game in a rated tournament like this?

Will I be penalized in terms of points or ratings for not attending the 10th round?

# Answer
If you are unable, for any reason, to play in one of the rounds then you must at the earliest opportunity tell the arbiter so that can be taken into account for the pairings for that round. Otherwise you will be paired against a player who will turn up expecting to play only to discover you are not there and have not told anybody.

You may find that the tournament has a policy of allowing one or more half point byes and you may be credited with a half point for the game you didn't play.

If you just miss the round without any prior warning then the organisers are within their rights to eject you from the tournament. You may also be banned from future events by the same organisers. Games that have been played will be rated. Not to do so would be unfair to your opponents in those games.
> 3 votes

# Answer
This is likely dependent on a variety of factors, including the rating organization/federation(s) involved, the tournament organizer, and maybe even the rules of the specific event. All my experiences have been in the United States, so if you are somewhere else things may be different.

First, let me say that you should always notify the tournament director as soon as you can if you cannot play a round. It's not just courteous, but it helps them do their job better and keeps the tournament running smoother. Further, it will help you avoid potential problems later (as mentioned below).

The U.S. Chess Federation does not rate games forfeited due to one player missing the game completely. (Additionally, byes are not rated.) Thus your USCF rating should not be detrimentally affected if you simply skip a round.

On the occasions I've seen a player fail to show for a game without notifying the tournament director in advance, that player has been withdrawn from the tourney. Thus they are not paired in subsequent rounds. TBH, I'm not sure how it's handled if they reappear for later rounds as I've never seen it happen. Such a player may be required to re-register - including paying a second registration fee - before being allowed to play in subsequent rounds, or the organizer may just say that player can't play in the rest of that tournament. What I do know is that one organizing group in my area assesses a financial penalty before they allow someone to play again if they are a "no show". This will apply to a subsequent tournament if not the current one. So there could be a financial penalty above the potential loss of prize money from the lost point. However, as far as I know, there is no actual penalty in the number of points you've scored in the event; e.g. if you have 6 points after 9 rounds and simply blow off the 10th round, you will still have 6 points.

If you fail to show up to play you run the risk of upsetting a couple people. Firstly, there will probably be a player expecting a game who doesn't get to play one; yes, they will get an "easy" point, but that's not what they paid for. Further, they may have to sit and watch your clock run down instead of doing something more enjoyable or productive somewhere else, and that's not fun. There may also be an annoyed arbiter/tournament director who probably would have made different pairings if they had known you weren't going to be there; this could include giving someone a game who received a bye because there were an odd number of players expected to play that round. It could prove harmful to you that the tournament director is annoyed if you need their assistance in a later round; while they should remain impartial, if something comes down to your word vs. your opponent's, they might default to believing your opponent as they figure you aren't trustworthy.

As noted in Brian's response, half point byes are often available in tournaments nowadays. So, if you know you're going to miss a certain round ahead of time and such a bye is available, I'd recommend requesting one. That way your tournament score won't be affected as much as the forfeit loss you'd get if you simply don't show up. Also, the arbiter/director will know that you shouldn't be paired in that round. Often you need to place the request for a half point bye at some point fairly early in the tournament, e.g. I just looked at the registration page for an upcoming tournament where a half point bye can be requested for any round, but they must be requested well before the start of round 3. Even if you can't get the half point, it's best for everyone involved for you to notify the officials as early as possible.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rules, strategy, fide, rating, tournament
---


# Question
Title: Which Chess Engine is Most Preferred by Grandmasters for Analysis and Considered the Fastest and Best Currently?
As an avid chess player looking to improve my game, I am curious about the tools that top-level players, especially grandmasters, use for analysis. Specifically, I am interested in knowing which chess engine is currently the most preferred among grandmasters for deep game analysis.

Furthermore, I am also keen to learn about the current state of chess engines in terms of speed and overall performance. Which chess engine is considered the fastest and best for analysis purposes right now?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Stockfish is the unchallenged strongest engine right now. It has won the last eight TCEC competitions, often by crushing margins. Its dominance is not seriously challenged; there are some engines that can win an occasional opening\* against it, but as a whole Stockfish wins more than it loses.

However if the question is "most preferred ... for analysis", then absolute strength is not all there is. It's not irrelevant, but it's not the be-all-end-all either, because in opening preparation you are aiming to reach a position which you are familiar with while the opponent is not, while retaining scope to play for a win. This is not the same as "the position which is better for you". In this case analysis by a weaker engine can actually be preferable. Sure, the weaker engine's preferred move might lose a couple of centipawns in Stockfish's eval, but you're playing against a human, not Stockfish, and humans might not be able to capitalize. In this case, you should make use of all the strongest engines, perhaps crosscheck their preferred lines against each other. The strongest CPU engines are Stockfish, Torch, Komodo, Berserk, and Ethereal. If you have an exceptionally high-end GPU,\** then the GPU engines might be more useful for you, in which case the strongest is Leela Chess Zero. (Stoofvlees is also a strong GPU engine, but it's not widely available.)

For most people, Stockfish suffices. It's only when you're at the upper echelons of chess skill where surprising the opponent is more important than achieving the objectively-best position, that you might consider the other engines.

\*In engine chess, the opening is predetermined, and both engines take turns to play white. To win an opening, you need to either score 1.5-0.5, or 2-0 (known as a "double kill" or "reverse kill").

\**These days there are two basic kinds of engines: the ones that use NNUE run on CPU, and the ones that use NNs largely run on GPU. Simplifying a little, the two kinds of engines are incompatible with each other's hardware. Your particular hardware is likely to be CPU-focused, making the CPU engines more useful; but if you for whatever reason have a lot of GPU resources (crypto mining, AI enthusiast, gamer ...) then the GPU engines might be preferable.

PS: You also ask about the "fastest". For your purposes this is almost surely an irrelevant metric, because speed - or nps, short for nodes (i.e. positions searched) per second - depends on how complicated an engine's evaluation function is. If you write a really simple evaluation function, your speed goes up, but your playing strength goes down, because you've lost the ability to evaluate a position as accurately.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Not long ago, I attended a public lecture by Jon Edwards, the winner of the 2022 World Correspondence Chess Championship. In modern correspondence chess, unlimited engine use is permitted. To get an edge, the top players need to be able to make better use of all the tools available than their competitors can. Edwards said that in addition to the "usual suspects" such as Stockfish and Leela, he found that Houdini would sometimes be able to generate ideas not found by the other engines—but usually only if you were prepared to run it for several days on a position.

Edwards also emphasized the importance of databases of chess games. He said that the databases of correspondence chess games were the most important, and that even non-correspondence players at the elite level rely heavily on correspondence chess databases, and not just on databases of human-versus-human games.

---
Tags: engines, analysis, learning, software, grandmaster
---


# Question
Title: Do grandmasters ever disagree on what the main purpose of a move was?
I don't mean disagreeing on which move should be played, but why the chosen move was played. The reason why I ask is because if I study a game and read the annotater's explanation, I tend to ask myself if other grandmasters annotating the game would say the same thing or not, or perhaps agree partly but add more important explanations that were not mentioned. Has anyone encountered this before? The only reason why I haven't is because I've always only had one annotater to read from regarding a specific move when studying a game (I mean verbal commentary), so I don't get a chance to compare.

For example, one grandmaster says "Played to protect the weak square on e5", and then another says "The piece moves out of the way so that a2-a4 can be played and launch a minority attack.", so they are really saying different things on what the primary purpose on the move was. Perhaps the first annotater said what he said because the minority attack (or a2-a4 even) was never actually played due to change in circumstances, while the second annotater saw that the minority attack was the original plan but it was changed shortly. Or perhaps the second annotator was wrong about the move's primary intention (perhaps the minority attack was just a secondary possibility) and it really was meant to protect the e5-square, and that is why a2-a4 was never played. I just made up that hypothetical example of course. You can imagine similar "arguments" between grandmasters.

# Answer
The short answer is "Yes, they most certainly do". Not only that but they often disagree on whether the move is a good move or a bad move! This kind of thing comes from players and annotators having preconceived ideas about the players whose games they are annotating rather than because they are trying to deceive possible future opponents or keep important analysis secret. Players who still have such secrets to keep rarely if ever annotate games and if they do will be mostly bland and just follow the kind of analysis you would get from a computer.

Here is a concrete example of some very explicit disagreement from John Nunn's latest book "John Nunn's Chess Course". It's worth quickly saying that it's not really a chess course. Rather it is an excuse for John Nunn to publish very detailed analyses of some of Lasker's games disguised as a chess course ;-).

> The second example is from much later in Lasker's career ...
>
> It shows how once a narrative is accepted, the analysis is then shoehorned into being consistent with it and objectivity is thrown out of the window. The numerous spurious improvements for Black bear witness to the power of the consensus and only serve to obscure the real point that Lasker skillfully led the game into a deceptive position that appeared much better for Black but was not.
>
> This time the references are to *Why Lasker Matters* by Soltis (Batsford, 2005) and *Emanuel Lasker Games 1904 - 1940* by Soloviov (Chess Stars, 1998). ... This is another game which has been considered little more than a swindle, and it's interesting to see how Soltis and Soloviov jump through all sorts of analytical hoops in order to keep the narrative intact.

There then follows a detailed analysis of the game interspersed with criticism for Soltis and Soloviov for just getting the analysis wrong. Nunn clearly has a very high opinion of the longest reigning world champion and believes that critics have often done Lasker an injustice which he puts right.

Note that the analysis that Nunn takes issue with is relatively modern. It is not that computers weren't available in 1998 and 2005 for Soloviov and Soltis to use to check their analyses rather that they neglected to use them because they had already made up their minds!
> 8 votes

# Answer
Indeed there are! You can find the most of these cases in Mikhail Tal's games... Many people considered his sacrifices as a wrong move on more than 1 occasion. In fact there's even a funny quote from one of Tal's games:

"""When I asked Fischer why he had not played a certain move in our game, he replied: 'Well, you laughed when I wrote it down'."""

Chess is more opinion based than you think. There are different styles and methods of approach. So yes, even today grandmasters disagree on moves.
> 2 votes

# Answer
As others have said, the answer is yes, but John Watson, author of the excellent book, *Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy*, might go further, and argue that in many cases, *there is no "explanation" for a move other than "it works"*.

Watson is critical of what he calls "rules" (a more accurate term would be "heuristics" because Watson is not referring to rules such as "checkmate ends the game") for how to play chess: "don't move a piece twice in the opening," "a knight on the rim is dim," etc. Watson argues that such heuristics are overgeneralizations, and although they may be useful for helping beginners get some foothold on the game, they always have exceptions. Modern grandmasters always place a premium on concrete calculation. If explicit calculation shows that a move leads to an advantageous position, then it's good, and if it doesn't, then it's not.

In extreme cases, there really may be no "explanation" for a move other than "the computer says it's good." Endgame tablebases are full of long, complicated maneuvers which are completely inscrutable to a mere mortal, or even to a top chess engine that doesn't have the tablebases loaded. Some endings take over 500 moves to win, and if you play through the moves, you will find many cases where there is only one move that wins, but it is essentially impossible to "explain" why it is the only move, other than by listing thousands of variations.

Of course, a 500-move ending is an extreme case. In most positions, there are brief verbal "explanations" of moves which can be given to help you improve your thought process and play better chess. But you should recognize that usually, qualitative explanations are just rough guidelines to help you make sense of the position. Concrete variations are the ultimate truth in chess, and the decision as to how to "explain" a move is a matter of taste and style; de gustibus non est disputandum.
> 1 votes

# Answer
GMs do disagree on what move to make, but the reason for making it is likely to be how they chose to tell us what the move did for our edification more than any major disagreement on that move itself, other than would it have been their first choice.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: grandmaster
---


# Question
Title: How many grandmasters have been stripped of their titles?
How many grandmasters have been stripped of their grandmaster titles? I heard about a GM using a phone in the bathroom who had his taken away, and was wondering what other circumstances have resulted in a GM losing their title.

# Answer
After doing some checking, it seems that this is a relatively new phenomenon. Before the advent of technology, and strong chess playing programs on smartphones, it does not appear that any GMs had ever been stripped of their titles until GM Gaioz Nigalidze, at least that I could find.

Gaioz Nigalidze was stripped of his GM title after being caught with a phone in a bathroom stall at the 2015 Dubai Open. He had been suspected for some time.

The case that you probably read about was GM Igors Rausis. Last year, Rausis made international news when he was caught doing the same thing in a bathroom stall at the Strasbourg Open. His behavior and meteoric rating increases over the course of 6 years had put him on the radar for a long time.

This seems to have set a good precedent as far as I am concerned as there is no room for cheating.

P.S. I found this interesting post that, believe it or not (at least in the case of Nigalidze) claimed he could earn the title again if he completed the norms in the future; but the official FIDE ethics report does not mention the possibility either way.
> 10 votes

# Answer
PhishMaster's answered regarding the international grandmaster (FIDE) titles, but USSR had its own "USSR grandmaster" title, which actually was introduced before. There are a few anectodes related to it.

The first USSR grandmaster was Boris Verlinsky, who was awarded the title for becoming the 1929 USSR champoin. However, in 1931 Verlinsky was stripped of the title (I understand that the title was not quite awarded for life, but subject to "confirmation" in subsequent tournaments.) The title was abolished, and re-instated in 1935, with Botvinnik becoming the first one to get it. Verlinsky never became a grandmaster again.

This was all before international GM title even existed. After its introduction in 1950, the two titles existed in USSR in parallel for some time, with more or less the same set of people holding both.

Then, of course, Korchnoi, who was stripped of all of his USSR titles after emigrating, including the USSR GM title. Some claim that Taimanov was stripped of the USSR GM title after losing to Fischer, but I could not find a source for that claim. In his interviews, he mentions that he was stripped of *another* domestic title, the "Zasluzhenny master sporta".
> 1 votes

---
Tags: history, fide, grandmaster, cheating, titles
---


# Question
Title: Is there a name for this mating pattern?
What's the name of the mating pattern starting with the move 21...Ng4!?

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. d5 e6 4. e4 exd5 5. exd5 d6 6. Nf3 Be7 7. Bb5+ Nbd7 8. a4 O-O 9. O-O b6 10. Bc6 Rb8 11. Bf4 Bb7 12. Bxb7 Rxb7 13. Qd3 Nh5 14. Be3 Ne5 15. Nxe5 dxe5 16. Qf5 Nf6 17. Qxe5 Bd6 18. Qf5 Re8 19. Rad1 Re5 20. Qd3 Rh5 21. h3 Ng4 22. hxg4 Bh2+ 23. Kh1 Bd6+ 24. gxh5 Qh4+ 25.Kg1 Qh2# 0-1

```

# Answer
It's rather rare that a mating pattern has a name. (Note that there is a book "1001 Deadly Checkmates" by GM Nunn, but I bet only a handful are named.) That said, the idea of sacrificing a rook and "replacing" it with the stronger queen was already given by Damiano around 1500 - 2nd diagram here. Specifically, "Damiano's Mate" refers only to the end position (usually with a P, but a B also "counts"). You can compare a few examples here and judge yourself if you find it "close enough".
> 4 votes

# Answer
A matting pattern refers to a specific configuration, not to a sequence of moves, thus the hole maneuver starting with 21...Nh4!? has no name as far as I know.

That being said, when the Queen delivers mate just next to the King, either in front or diagonally, it is known as 'Kiss of death'.

https://www.chess.com/lessons/how-to-checkmate/kiss-of-death-checkmate

If the piece protecting the Queen is a pawn, it might be referred either as a Lolli's mate or Damiano's mate, depending on the configuration.

In Damiano's Mate, usually pawn is not only protecting the Queen, but also preventing the King from escape to other square.

In Lolli's Mate, the position looks like this:
> 2 votes

# Answer
Not an exact match by any means, but the idea of using the knight as a "bait" to open the file and expose the h7 square is very similar to the fishing pole trap in the Berlin Defence.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Damiano's bishop mate. "Damiano's bishop mate is a classic method of checkmating. The checkmate utilizes a queen and bishop, where the bishop is used to support the queen and the queen is used to engage the checkmate. The checkmate is named after Pedro Damiano." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate\_pattern#Damiano's\_bishop\_mate
> 1 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, terminology, patterns
---


# Question
Title: Does this knight and rook mating pattern have a name, or has it occurred before?
```
[fen "5k2/8/1R6/5r2/P7/1P4P1/6KP/5n2 b - - 0 40"]

```

With black to move, remarkably it's mate in 2 (at first glance, it looks like black may struggle to even draw). It occurred in a recent LiChess game of mine. It looks like the kind of position that might occur in a composed puzzle because it contains the precise material required to checkmate.

**Question**: Does this knight and rook mating pattern have a name, or has it occurred before?

When there's a mating pattern involving so little material (just the rook and knight, no king), I feel it might be worthwhile studying it in its own right. The knight and rook could be on multiple other squares and still achieve essentially the same mate.

# Answer
That is a nice problem, with rook and knight mating a king at the edge, with one square blocked. Here's a helpmate problem which shows more examples of that phenomenon:

```
[Title "Forsberg, Revista Romana de Sah, 1935. h#2. b) bRa6 c) bBa6 d) bNa6 e) bPa6"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "8/8/q7/8/1R4K1/k2N4/8/8 b KQkq - 0 1"]

1... Qf6 2. Nc5 Qb2 3. Ra4#

```

My analysis is based on that by John Nunn, *Solving in Style*, prob. 133. White's king is too far away to participate in the mating-net (though it is accurately placed to avoid dual solutions). So White must mate with rook and knight alone. Rook and knight can mate, but only if bK is in a corner. With only 2 Black moves, this corner must be a1, but this entails wNc3, which the knight can't reach in two moves. Therefore Black must block one square in bK's field, and this is where the unit on a6 comes in. The 5 choices of unit lead to 5 different mating nets.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I believe that that is called “Anatasia Mate,” based on Wikipeda's testimony.

> In Anastasia's mate, a knight and rook team up to trap the opposing king between the side of the board on one side and a friendly piece on the other. Often, the queen is first sacrificed along the a-file or h-file to achieve the position. This checkmate gets its name from the novel Anastasia und das Schachspiel by Johann Jakob Wilhelm Heinse.

It gives this position as an example of Anatasia mate.

```
[FEN "8/4N1pk/8/7R/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Now compare it to the checkmate from your game.

```
[FEN "5k2/8/1R6/7r/P7/1P2n1PK/7P/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Even though the White king has an extra pawn by it, I believe it to be similar enough to call it an Anatasia mate.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Interesting position that can give rise to two different mating patterns:

1. Anastasia's mate if the king advances to h6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate\_pattern#Anastasia's\_mate
2. A variation of the Arabian mate if the King retreats to h8 or g8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate\_pattern#Arabian\_mate
> 0 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, terminology, patterns, rook-and-minor-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Is there a name attributed to this type of checkmate pattern?
I was going over an old lichess.com game when I realized that the checkmating pattern seemed familiar.

```
[FEN "5rk1/p4pp1/1p5p/2p4Q/2P3R1/P4q2/6RP/4r2K w - - 0 1"]

```

Here it is boiled down, although the White rook could be replaced by any White piece.

```
[FEN "4k3/8/8/8/8/5q2/6RP/4r2K w - - 0 1"]

```

I wondered if this mating pattern his a particular name. However, Wikipedia is of no help. Is there a name for this checkmating pattern?

# Answer
The OP had two different patterns. One is simple mate with two pieces attacking two files.

The other one is just a pin and a back rank rook mate.
> 3 votes

# Answer
1. Ladder mate (along files) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate\_pattern#Ladder\_mate\_(lawnmower\_mate)
2. Back-rank mate - the king's escape from the back-rank is impeded by its own pieces. Incorporates an absolute pin immobilising the Rook. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate\_pattern#Back-rank\_mate
> 0 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, terminology, patterns
---


# Question
Title: Number of Games in the Upcoming World Classical Chess Championship: Comparison with Previous Championships
I'm curious about the format of the upcoming World Classical Chess Championship. Historically, the number of games in these championships has varied. For instance, the Carlsen-Karjakin championship in 2016 featured 12 games, while the recent Ding-Nepo championship had 14 games.

Given these variations, I'm interested in knowing how many games are planned for the next World Classical Chess Championship. Understanding this could provide insights into the strategies and preparations of the players involved.

# Answer
The format will be a best of 14 games. There will be tie breaks if required. Source

The format has been formalised by FIDE, so I wouldn't be anticipating significant changes for at least another 2 to 3 championship match ups. It's either that, or serious chess drama unfolds, which is always a possibility.

Sadly, we wont be seeing any epics like Karpov v Korchnoi in 1978, which went for 32 games, anytime soon.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: history, tournament, grandmaster, world-championship, famous-players
---


# Question
Title: i need help about the lesson plans or the curriculum to follow to teach chess
I was a chess coach working in organizations. Now I would like to start my own. I need help about the chess curriculum or lesson plan and the platform to use to teach. Also are there any courses for chess coaches.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I recommend the Chess Steps Method & Curriculum \- from beginner to Master level (all ages)

> "Chess-Steps is a step by step method for teaching and learning chess. The combination of workbook and manual creates a school like situation. All lessons are structured and contain clear goals. The books cover everything from how the pieces move in Step 1 to important endgame strategies in Step 5 and 6. Most attention is given to tactics. The strength of Chess-Steps is that it chops all tactics into little building blocks. Solving a chess problem with a subject is significantly easier than a problem without. Not only are all tactics categorized, Chess-Steps offers a search strategy for every subject as well. Students will develop a feeling for tactical positions, a sense for when to be alert and take advantage of badly placed pieces"

For a great online resource targeted at kids consider Chesskid, great curriculum and great teaching resources.

---
Tags: coach
---


# Question
Title: Game Analysis Techniques of Grandmasters in the 1970s for World Chess Championships
I'm interested in the historical aspect of chess, particularly in how grandmasters prepared and analyzed their games during significant events like the World Chess Championships in the 1970s. My questions are:

What methods did grandmasters in the 1970s use to analyze their games for such high-level competitions?

Were there specific tools or resources commonly used by these players for game analysis at that time?

# Answer
Before computer electronic databases chess knowledge was accumulated in books, magazines and tournament reports and word of mouth.

In some countries eg USSR top players had regular paid employment and the leading players could call on them to research the literature of published games to advise on say opening novelties and on the strengths and weaknesses of rival chess players.

In Western countries chess masters could not rely on much state sponsored help if any but could get access to private sources.

For example Bobby Fischer had the assistance of Robert Wade. You can check Wikipedia for added information. Wade had a huge library of chess literature and tournament bulletins at his home in London. He would prepare flip books for Fischer with the most up to date opening knowledge for specific opponents.

The flip book was in effect an analogue database with a tree-like structure.

So for example after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 the flip book would fork to a page where White replies Bxc6 with resulting variations of the Exchange Lopez, another fork to Ba4 and so on.

Correspondence chess bulletins were a useful source of information due to the immense amount of work put in by CC grandmasters on each position.

Fischer was very secretive and did not take kindly to any of his collaborators disclosing their help. (He and his acolytes liked to nurture the story of the chess loner taking on the behemoth of USSR chess all by himself.)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, analysis, history, grandmaster, world-championship
---


# Question
Title: The state of chess when it becomes solved (or nearly solved)
Let's take a hypothetical middlegame position, where there is one move that leads to checkmate for white and every other move is a draw. Let's say that grandmasters examining the position, but not knowing the mathematical solution, would say that White has a slight advantage in development and more space, and they all agree that 25.Nd3 is the best move as it aims for the weak e5-square.

The computer, however shows that 25.dxc6 leads to checkmate in 105 moves with best play by both sides, while all other moves, including 25.Nd3 leads to a draw with best play by both sides. For those of you who say that such technology will never be possible, then let's jump into the future where computers are so fast that engines calculate 25.dxc6 to give an evaluation of +5.0 after 30 minutes and then stays at that evaluation, while all other moves they evaluate to be near 0.0, in which case we can still arrive at the conclusion that 25.dxc6 will most certainly be a tablebase win for White while other moves are likely a tablebase draw.

Furthermore, grandmasters all rejected 25.dxc6 (or at least strongly preferred 25.Nd3) because they found it to be quite "anti-positional" and the variations they calculated led to no advantage for White at all. But the truth is that the engines only find White to gain a +5.0 evaluation after depth of 80, which explains why the grandmasters could not find any advantage with their own analysis. Furthermore, they analyzed their recommended move 25.Nd3 in great depth (for a human), and found White to be much better than black in all variations. However, the engines find that Black equalizes after depth 40, which the grandmasters could not calculate to, and only with one specific main line that the grandmasters could not see even if they did calculate that far.

This was a hypothetical position of course, but let's say that most middlegame positions in chess are like this, where one side seems to have an advantage. What is the state of the game now? Is it now a game of pure math and computation that strategic concepts go out the window and now is a game that the best move is best simply because it is? What is that state of chess when we reach this level of technology and "truth" about the game?

# Answer
> 5 votes
For the average player, not much changes.

The problem is: Even if you can get to that exact position 24 moves deep in an actual game, and even if you know that 25.dxc6 leads to mate in 105, you have to be able to execute that mate on the board - you cannot consult the computer during a match.

If your opponent has just 2 seemingly reasonable replies for the next 39 moves (before you get to the depth 80 where the win is evident), that's over 500 billion possibilities - and for most moves your opponent has way more than two reasonable replies. You cannot simply memorize all of it. You cannot calculate it.

And if you can't memorize it, can't calculate it, and can't ask the computer... you're left with strategic concepts to guide you.

---
Tags: engines, strategy, tablebases
---