# Question
Title: Chess tricks to fool opponents before game
There is chess tournament nearing and I am one of the participants. I have been participating in it in the last few years. And once I was fooled by one of my opponents at the start of the game. He acted such as if he was a very bad player and asked me silly questions at the start of the game. And I got fooled and underestimated the opponent. We also played a practice match first and I won it easily (I guess he didn't play that match seriously). And finally in the real match, he won over me. He was not better than me. (Actually, after analyzing the game, I understood that I had done lot silly mistakes in the game probably because I underestimated him).

So finally, I liked that tactic of my opponent and I want to use it. So, I am in search of some things I can say to the opponent before the match due to which he will underestimate me.

# Answer
Approach you opponent and ask him if he is good. He'll probably respond by saying that he is okay or pretty good. Then tell him how once you played someone who was really good and how you lost in ten moves. Also, it is preferable if you pretend to be 8 years old or younger. As you set up the board, make sure to set the board wrong. Place the knight where the bishop should go, and of course the queen should be misplaced as well. He'll correct you and you will pretend you didn't know. The most important thing is during the game. Make sure you seem undecided. Hover your hand around a random pawn and pretend like your thinking. Then hover around another pawn and do the same. Forget to press the clock a couple times. Do a couple illegal moves. I once had a person do exactly this. He pretend to be a child and oblivious to the rules of chess and I just played really fast and careless and lost. I lost because I didn't take my opponent seriously. Things are not always what they seem, so always keep your eyes open and don't underestimate your opponent. I'm assuming that the tournament you speak of isn't an official uscf because you didn't know how strong your opponents are(rating).
> 5 votes

# Answer
Truth be told... Those are underhanded tactics that won't get you far, in fact they won't get you 2 steps ahead in chess let alone more than that. At higher levels people rarely even speak to each other until they play their matches(afterwards however they do meet up and speak normally).

One crucial mistake you did however, one you should avoid next time is **never** play a game before the tournament, warm up or otherwise. It gives away your pattern of thought, your opening knowledge (at least some of it) and overall exposes some of your tactics, and no one likes to be easily read like an open book in chess.

As for what you want to do... The only place I advise you should use psychology is in the actual chess game itself, nothing prior to that.

Usually when people play and become frustrated or under pressure, their bodies react in different ways... Some sweat, others scratch their heads, some keep ticking on the floor with their feet and the list goes on really. Your job is to be able to read those moments and use them to open up their defense (or break their offense). You should also play on the clock! Something many beginners miss at the start is the pressure of the clock!

The clock has the second most pressure on players after the moves done in the game... Every second passing adds to an invisible pressure that is already unpleasant! If you are able to make your opponent lose time that's the biggest advantage you'll get.

And last but not least... If you want to use some tactics to throw off your opponent, I highly recommend against talking in the tournament as you might get banned or lose the match if the opponent chooses to report you to the judges. So you should instead use facial expressions... While he's making a move (one you actually consider dangerous) you smile in a sarcastic way as if you think that move is bad etc... Same thing goes when you're the one making the move, sometimes the move is not perfect (it rarely is) but with the right influence exerted throughout the match your opponent might end up even getting hesitant about taking a free piece you just tried sacrificing.

But keep in mind, almost none of these will work on higher levels, especially the body language one as older and experienced players tend to have habits when playing, some move their bodies in different ways which you can interpret in an incorrect manner resulting in the loss of your match.

And of course! I highly recommend you instead focus on leveling your game instead of trying these tactics... In fact most of these will come by themselves when you gain enough experience, rarely do any of the players that use underhanded tactics advance into the high levels of chess (at least without abandoning those tactics)

I apologize if I have some mistakes in the text, I am quite sleepy... But I hope I helped a bit
> 3 votes

# Answer
The "tactic" he used doesn't work on experienced players. You were easily fooled by some talk and an off-hand game. OK, it happens; learn from it and don't let it happen again. Experienced tournament players don't fall for that. As a general rule, for example, I never even look at my opponent's rating before the game, and I always assume my opponent is at least as good as I am, and quite probably better, or they wouldn't be playing against me in this tournament.

Chalk your mistake up to experience and remember not to be fooled by it again, and realize that if your opponent is inexperienced enough to fall for that kind of thing, you should probably be able to beat them anyway, simply by playing your best, so there's no purpose served in expending the energy.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: psychology
---


# Question
Title: What's wrong with 4...e5 in the Open Sicilian?
I like to play 4...e5 in the Open Sicilian in my games, usually facing something like this:

```
[StartPly "8"]

[fen ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb3 Nc6

```

I do this to:

1. Chase the knight so that it doesn't block advancing my pieces.
2. Regain control of the center after 3...cxd4.
3. Gain a tempo.

Is there any disadvantage in doing this ?

# Answer
After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb3 Nc6, the position is probably fine for black.

However, after 4....e5, white seems to have a stronger reply: 5.Bb5+. According to the Game Database of ChessTempo, this is also the most popular move. Now, black has two options: 4....Bd7 or 4....Nd7. After both moves, white can put his knight on f5 and obtain a slightly better position.

Therefore, I would say that 4....e5 is a small inaccuracy. However, the *ideas* behind the move (occupying the center, gaining a tempo) are perfectly fine.

Maybe it is interesting to take a look at:

* the Sveshnikov variation: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5
* the Kalashnikov variation: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5
* the Classical variation: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6, and after 6.Be2, 6....e5
* the Najdorf variation: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6, and after 6.Be2, 6....e5

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "3"]

      1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 (2...Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 (4...e5) 5.Nc3 e5) 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 (4...Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 (5...Nc6 6.Be2 e5) 6.Be2 e5) 5.Bb5+ (5.Nb3 Nc6) 5...Nd7 (5...Bd7 6.Bxd7+ Qxd7 7.Nf5) 6.Nf5

```
> 12 votes

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, 1.e4
---


# Question
Title: Could you estimate Napoleon's (or other historic persons) Elo on the base of his known games?
I wonder if there is a possibility to calculate/estimate the Elo rating Napoleon would have today by analysing his known games? Is it possible at all to calculate an Elo rating only with some documented games, if so, how many games would you need to give a good estimation? Is there a list of Elo estiminations for historic persons which are known as good Chess Players before Elo rating was used?

I wonder if it is somehow possible to estimate the strength Napoleon would have even it is not an Elo value. If you could theoretically play a game against him today, with all the chess-knowledge and strategies discovered after his death, how good would you need to be to have a chance?

# Answer
There are efforts to calculate the playing strength of pre-Elo players on the basis of their games. See for example this paper by Kenneth Regan.

But if you look at the "intrinsic performance rating" of historic players on page 5, you will find that they vary quite a bit even for the same player at different points in time.

Personally I find it quite unlikely that the performance of Zukertort or Steinitz varied by over 300 points against different players.

To estimate the playing strength of a player who left only very few (and selected at that!) games, these methods seem to be nowhere precise enough.

Edit: I found another paper but this method seems to end up with a rating between 2700 and 2800 no matter what, which doesn't inspire much confidence.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The Ratings of Chessplayers Past And Present by Arpad Elo tackles that question. It can be done, Elo does a little of it (before harping about his methodolgy, though, remember when he wrote that he had only an HP calculator to do all the calculations). Others have done it using different methods.

But the exercise itself is rather pointless. An ELO of 2495 today does not mean the same strength as an ELO of 2495 from decades ago (unless you are seriously going to try and make the point that any of the top 100 or so grandmasters of today could easily beat the Booby Fischer from 1963 that went 11-0 in the US championship, or that Wesley So or Fabiano Caruana today could beat a Fischer at the peak of his abilities).

Ratings are useful for comparisons of contemporaries, but the farther apart in time the players get the more meaningless the comparisons are. A rating is a measurement of strength relative to the whole, and even among players of the same year, a reduction in the player pool will change the numbers (though probably not the relative order).
> 3 votes

---
Tags: history, rating, elo
---


# Question
Title: What are must read chess books every chess player has to read to become an Expert Class?
I'm a Class B chess player. I would like to reach Expert Class one day. What are must read chess books. Please provide a list of books.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Some favorites:

These books are all famous **and** very good.

Books by Nunn, Aagaard, Dvoretzky or Yusupov are recommended, though you have to be careful to find those suitable for your level.

The Polgar trilogy is very good and there is an upcoming series by Boris Gelfand. Two absolute top players, but nevertheless very accessible books.

Metachess: I really liked The Seven Deadly Chess Sins and Move First, Think Later.

Still, although I always read a lot of books, I would maintain that playing a lot of tournament games against stronger players is far more important.

---
Tags: tournament, books
---


title: Choosing one move from the two moves

text:
# Question
Title: Choosing one move from the two moves
From the given position, **is it better to take with rook or the a-pawn and why ?**

*Black to move*:

The engine suggested the move `axb4`, why?

There must be some strategical or tactical point (ignore the arrows in the diagram).

# Answer
After axb4 the a2-pawn is a fixed weakness that can easily be further attacked with Ra8. Defending this pawn will force whites heavy pieces into passive positions.

Taking with the queen or the rook on b4 will allow Rb1 with a rook exchange. Even if this rook exchange happens on b4 and therefore creates the same pawn structure as after an immediate axb4, the defence of a weak a-pawn will be much easier without the rooks. In fact white might be able to exchange the a-pawn for the b-pawn relatively quickly.
> 7 votes

# Answer
In my opinion, capturing with the pawn is the correct move, and the logic behind the move is twofold and more of a strategic one.

First, you remove a weakness of your own. Black's `a` pawn is an isolated one and it creates a pawn island of its own. Therefore, after capturing with the pawn, you no longer have any isolated pawns and you've only got just one pawn island, instead of two (typically a pawn structure with less pawn islands is superior to a pawn structure one with more pawn islands).

Also, capturing with the pawn exposes a weakness in the White camp, namely the `a` pawn. It is also an isolated pawn and by capturing with the `b` pawn Black opens a file against it (creates a target) and can later in the game exploit the weakness by adding pressure along the opened `a` file.
> 4 votes

# Answer
1...axb4 does two things:

Firstly, you can place pressure open file with an eventual Ra8. He can never defend the pawn actively because you would have the pin using move b3. The only defense would be to cram his Rook into a corner with the ugly Qb2 followed by Ra1 (by white)

Secondly, you are saving a pawn island (which was the a pawn) and moving it into the rest of the group. It can now be much better supported by a move like c5 sometime
> 3 votes

# Answer
I would take the rook with the pawn, because it allows you to move the rook to the corner and then pressure the white queen with your queen, in other words Ra8 (black does whatever) Qa2
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: How can I open (or convert into .PGN) old Chessmaster .CMG files, without Chessmaster?
I have many old chess games saved from Chessmaster 7000, 8000, and maybe even 9000. They are all saved in the Chessmaster .CMG file format.

How can I access these games today?

I would like to either open them or convert them to .PGN format.

# Answer
To access them today, you either need to reverse engineer the format (hard) or export them to PGN inside Chessmaster (moderate):

> HOW TO CONVERT CHESSMASTER GAME FILES (\*.CMG) TO \*.PGN FILES
>
> (\*.CMG files or Chessmaster game files are typically for use with the Chessmaster programs and may contain various enhancements, such as annotations, illustrated voice analyses, etc. Cf. page 25 of the Chessmaster 9000 user manual.)
>
> 1. Log in (on Chessmaster 9000) and go to Game Room.
> 2. Click on "File" in upper menu bar and then on "Load" in pull- down menu, to get "File Open" window.
> 3. By default, the "Look in" box will show a folder that is named the same as the name you log in with. Let's say it is "Loginame." If the file you wish to convert is not in the list in the big box below, then you will have to find it by scrolling to other folders. In front of the file the little icon will contain the number 9000. (The icons for \*.PGN files contain the initials PGN.)
> 4. Click on the name of the \*.CMG file that you wish to convert. The name will show in the "File name" box below. The "File of type" box should mention Chessmaster files. Leave "Auto" in the last ("Open as") box. Click the "Load" button and get the game on the board.
> 5. Click on "File" and then on "Save" in the pull-down menu.
> 6. "File Save" window comes up next. Check that the "Save in" folder is acceptable. (Your "Loginame" folder is OK, but you could even scroll to save the file on the floppy in drive a:) In the "File name" box below you can fill in a shorter (8-character) name of your choice, rather than accepting the long name created by Windows. In the "Save as type" box at the bottom,scroll and pick "PGN Game Files (\*.PGN). Click on the "Save" button. In the "Annotation Type" window that comes up next, accept "None" by clicking "OK."
> 7. The \*.CMG file has been stripped to the plain \*.PGN format and saved in the folder that you have chosen. If you wish to add this file to a database of your choice, see our earlier instructions under the appropriate heading.

Obviously, if you don't have Chessmaster installed, you will need to do that. Easiest way might be to install a Windows VM, then install a legacy copy of Chessmaster.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: software, pgn, chessmaster
---


title: How do i prevent blunders?

text:
# Question
Title: How do i prevent blunders?
Playing Online Chess seems to get rid of my bad blunders but after playing with little kids on a real match, I've made a very stupid blunder that decided the game.

Can't post the game, not recorded since It's a game played with kids.

# Answer
You need to stop playing "Hope Chess" and start playing "Real Chess."

Dan Heisman gives the definition of Hope Chess as follows:

> "HOPE" Chess - This is NOT when you make a move and hope your opponent doesn't see your threat. Instead, Hope chess is when you make a move and don't look at what your opponent might threaten on his next move, and whether you can meet that threat on your next move. *Instead, you just wait until next move and see what he does, and then **hope** you can meet any threats*. In my first 3 tournaments I played Hope chess and never won more than 1 game in any of the three. The speed at which you can play Hope chess also explains why I usually took only about half an hour for each game in these tournaments, even though the time control was 50 moves in 2 hours. Most high school level players play hope chess, but almost always lose when they run into a serious player who plays "Real Chess."

NM Heisman gives his simplified "Real Chess" thought process:

1) How the opponent's move changed the position and if threaten to do something positive.

2) What the goal/plan is for the position.

3) What the candidate moves are. A candidate move is a move that might do something positive, so you should at least look at it.

4) **Which of the moves are safe. Omitting this step is Hope Chess.**

5) Which of the safe candidates moves is best. At the end of this step, do a blunder check.

If you wait until the blunder check to make sure all responses to your move do not cause you to lose the game, this will limit your results. I used to play this way and could not get over 1300.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Of course everyone blunders from time to time. It is, however, possible to strongly reduce the frequency of this happening. The best strategy is an additional safety check once you have decided upon a move. So, once you have picked a move, take a couple more seconds to check whether it does not hang a piece allow checkmate etc.

While this will take time and you have to force yourself to do it, initially, after a while you will see that you subconsciously do the blunder check without the need to actually force yourself to do it.

Oh, and of course another reason might be that you just play too quickly.
> 1 votes

# Answer
On every move you need to twice check for threats: 1) Once before you consider your candidate move. Imagine the opponent gets a second move. What threats would he launch: check? capture? better position?

2) Again after you have selected one or more candidate moves. Ask yourself, "Does my candidate move enable my opponent to check, capture or improve his position?".
> 1 votes

# Answer
Playing a lot should reduce that problem. Of course, even then you must take time to look at your opponent's potential replies before you move. Even the least skilled opponent is making plans. The first thing to do is to make sure you haven't left any attacked unprotected pieces hanging. You must next also look for simple tactics against your pieces such as forks, pins and discovered attacks. That sounds like a lot of work but is necessary and becomes second nature with time. Be sure not to move too quickly. An old rule of thumb was to literally sit on your hands before moving to be sure you didn't move too hastily and superficially.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, psychology, blunder
---


# Question
Title: Endgame - pawnless Queen + Rook vs Queen
Today, when I was playing end game I had a queen, a rook and a king (no pawns). My opponent had just a queen. It was his turn (the board was pretty blank) and he started giving continuous checks. I tried to bring my pieces to defend the king but couldn't stop.

After sometime he claimed for a draw and argued that otherwise this would continue for ever (positions were not repeating, but still). I agreed.

Is there any way to defend in such cases or is the match just over? Even, is it fair that though we have a good lead the opponent is forcing a tie? What would be the result if such thing happens in GM game?

# Answer
> 4 votes
If the opposing king is in the center, and your king isn't in the corner, your goal is to pin his queen to his king as means of blocking a check (diagonal opposition). Move your king to force that bad check on his part. You should be able to win with KR v K. (Your goal is not to checkmate with two queens on the board, but to trade) It is a win with the queen, but to defend, check the opposite way from your king (If that makes sense).

# Answer
> 18 votes
In the vast majority of the cases, an ending of Q+R vs. Q should be winning.

However, some exceptions exist, for instance:

```

[FEN "6RK/7Q/5q2/8/8/8/8/3k4 w - - 0 1"]

      1.Qg7 Qh4+ 2.Qh7 Qf6+ 3.Rg7 Qd8+ 4.Qg8 Qh4+ 5.Rh7 Qf6+

```

In case you want to check whether your game was winning or not and how to win it, you can consult a tablebase, for example the free online tablebase of Shredder.

# Answer
> 11 votes
This is called perpetual check and it is a draw. There is no extra rule for perpetual check because the draw can be claimed by invoking the three-fold repetition rule. (You said positions were not repeating, but if you cannot escape from a perpetual check, they will repeat sooner or later).

If you carefully go through the game, you will probably spot a possibility to prevent him from giving perpetual check. In that case you missed a win. Often you can manoeuvre in such a way, that at one point you can block a check by giving check yourself. But if you cannot find a way to escape from the checks a draw is a fair result and this is a common occurrence even in grandmaster games.

# Answer
> 3 votes
According to theory, this endgame is won for the Q+R side. Note that you can afford a queen exchange, since K+R still wins against a lone K.

You should manage winning it (or reducing it by Q exchange) in less than 50 full moves which gives your oppenent the opportunity to claim a draw.

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, draw, queen-and-rook-endgame
---


# Question
Title: How do I avoid losing to lower rated players?
I'm a Class B chess player. I'm afraid of playing low rated players because if I lose my rating goes drastically down. Sometimes low rated chess players are underrated or they play really good one game against a stronger player.

# Answer
First, losing is part of chess. If losing didn't suck, then winning wouldn't rock.

Ratings are approximations. Don't let your rating define you.

The way to prevent lower rated players from defeating you is to not allow them to do so. Improve your play such that you can adequately punish the superficial hope-chess moves that "C" players play.

edit - There's no magic wand wand we can wave to help you. There is only working harder so you can play better moves.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Try not to be overconfident. That is almost always the case for which you are describing. I would recommend avoiding looking at the opponents rating until after the game.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: tournament
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to game my online chess rating?
When playing online chess, it is often possible to influence the order in which games are finished, either by choosing when to resign, or by intentionally playing as slowly as possible.

Once the outcome of a game is pretty clear, is it possible to "game" the rating system by manipulating the order in which games are finished? For example, if I'm currently losing against a low-rated player and winning against a high-rated one, will it make a difference if I first resign against the low-rated player, or wait until I win against the high-rated one?

# Answer
> 4 votes
A while ago you asked a related question. According to the answer you should probably resign games sorted by rating loss. If your rating drops quickly at the beginning, the subsequent losses should be smaller and the gains bigger.

At Gameknot this effect might be weaker because in that case they not always use the rating from the end of the game. But the safe bet is to always resign in sorted order. And there is another conclusion: You should start your new games at the moment, when you rating is lowest.

---
Tags: elo, online-chess, cheating
---


# Question
Title: Theoretical relationship between Caro-Kann exchange and Queen's Gambit exchange
Is there a book, or an article, which examines the relationship between these two openings? The Caro-Kann exchange (non-Panov) is `1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5`, and the Queen's Gambit exchange is `1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.cxd5 exd5`.

The positions are identical except for who is on move. I know that the Caro-Kann exchange is not considered critical, and I know that the Queen's Gambit exchange (via that particular move order, i.e. without `3.Nc3 Nf6`) is also not considered critical.

But does anybody know of a serious discussion of these two openings, which on the surface seem nearly identical?

# Answer
> 9 votes
Soltis' *Pawn Structure Chess* is a good book which treats all the common pawn structures that arise from popular openings. Its focus truly is on the pawn structures themselves and typical plans associated with them, rather than on the particular opening move-orders by which they arise. And the structure described in your question is treated in section "C. The Orthodox Exchange Formation," located in the chapter devoted to the Queen's Gambit family of structures. Soltis writes:

> Kmoch named \[this formation\] after the exchange systems (`cxd5 / ... exd5`) in the orthodox (read "normal") variation of the Q.G.D. It also occurs with colors reversed in the Caro-Kann (`1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c3` and `... e6`) and some rarer openings.

The Kmoch reference here is to the book *Pawn Power in Chess*, which also gives a short account of this structure, in the form of annotations to the game R.Byrne-Eliskases (1952). Kmoch has further discussion of this structure in his chapter on pawns and rooks; see pp. 100-103 of the Dover edition.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I think that this question really highlights the value of the initiative and the white pieces. In the Exchange QGD, the position is nearly equal according to theory, while in the Caro Kann, the position is nearly equal according to theory ...complicated.

I don't know of any books that compare the two simply because the Panov is still available. It can get incredibly crazy in so many lines when white takes on an IQP. On the other hand, black almost never willingly accepts an IQP in the QGD because he or she is down a full tempo (the Tarrasch is a different story).

My System does touch on some of the ideas of these positions (i.e. locked center with d4 and d5), but much of the theory (Carlsbad position, ideas in the minority attack lines, etc.) was developed more recently.

In terms of general ideas of the position (which would be a good starting point for trying to decide if the extra tempo makes a big difference), Kasparov's videos do a pretty good job of showing how the two sides fight with concrete ideas.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I heard a master talk about exactly this yesterday. The essential differences he highlighted were regarding minority attacks and using the open files. In the exchange Caro, black has a central majority and a strong minority attack on the a and b files. White tries to gain counterplay against the black in the form of a strong kingside attack. In the queens gambit exchange, it is then white who has the minority attack on the a and b files, and white hopes to win the black c pawn.

The master went much more into depth discussing certain bishop trades as well, but these were the main points I took from his lesson.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The Exchange Caro-Kann isn't considered critical because of one equalizing line:

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bd3 Nf6 5.Bf4 Nc6 6.c3 Bg4 7.Qb3 Qd7 8.Nd2 e6 9.Ngf3 Bxf3 10.Nxf3 Bd6!

```

and if

11.Bxd6

```
[fen "r3k2r/pp1q1ppp/2nbpn2/3p4/3P1B2/1QPB1N2/PP3PPP/R3K2R w - - 0 11"]

1.Bxd6 Qxd6 2.Qxb7 Rb8 3.Qa6 O-O 4.O-O Rb6

```

And the queen doesn't have a good square as 14.Qa3 Qxa3 leads to an equal game. If white doesn't take on b7 on move 12 (which is usual) then white has the kingside attack but black is left without a bad piece and chances are equal.

I don't play the Queen's Gambit exchange lines (there's a line that is pretty slow where white plays Nf3 and a minority attack, and also an aggressive like where white plays Ne2, f3, and eventually e4 which was considered pretty dangerous last I knew) but there black often struggles because he has a difficult time finding a good square for that light square bishop. See John Nunn's 'Understanding Chess Move by Move' for a fantastic discussion on this - I'm remembering this vaguely ten years after reading the book. These might not be considered the 'most critical' but I think that Grand Masters still play this opening looking for good results, though perhaps not as often as the most mainline openings.

Fischer played that Exchange vs the Caro a few times but this was before someone - I don't remember who - found that Bd6 move. White has a perfectly good general plan in that line but it doesn't give any pressure based on a single clever reply.

I think the main point is that it's hard to know what will really happen in an opening until you see specific moves and plans and play over many games. 'Critical' openings are based on specifics which have been found during the last 150 years of competition between top players, and can be hard to predict based on the third move position.

---
Tags: opening, learning, theory, queens-gambit, caro-kann
---


title: Beginners question: Strategic ideas

text:
# Question
Title: Beginners question: Strategic ideas
When I am watching chess lessons, the mentor mostly uses the phrase: 'lets look at the board and find some ideas'. As a beginner, I can't get passed the: 'look at what pieces you can grab.'

**Question:** What *keywords* or ideas should a beginner teach his/her chessmind to evaluate a chessboard better?

# Answer
There are two main categories for motifs in chess. Those are strategic and tactical motifs. Beginners should should focus on tactical motifs because strategic advantages are much smaller and negligible compared to material advantage, which tactics are usually the cause of. chesstempo has a good list of these.

http://chesstempo.com/tactical-motifs.html
> 2 votes

# Answer
Every chess player should focus on strategic ideas. Chess is a strategic game. However, tactics are important so you can ensure the implementation of your strategy will be successful and you will not blunder all your piece on the way. As a beginner you should still focus on strategic ideas but simple ones e.g. develop all your pieces on the best possible squares( rooks in open files, knights need posts,bishop on long diagonals etc), castle, play on the centre and try to spot opponent's weaknesses. These are the basic strategic ideas that all beginners should try to implement in every single chess game and follow blindly. That requires a lot of practice and even GMs fail to follow these strategic principles from time to time.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, learning, strategy, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Continuous evaluation of engine in ChessBase
I just bought ChessBase 13 and downloaded Stockfish, but when I am analyzing my games there is no continuous evaluation of the moves. So say I make 3 extra moves, the engine is still calculating the position 3 moves before. How can I change so that the engine automatically calculates the position on the board, so that it will go along with the moves?

Hope you can help!!

# Answer
> 1 votes
I bet you turned on the "Lock engine" toggle, which tells the engine to keep analyzing the position it's on even when the board changes. There's a padlock icon in the engine window. Try clicking it so the padlock is open.

---
Tags: engines, evaluation, chessbase
---


title: Purpose behind the move

text:
# Question
Title: Purpose behind the move
I was just guessing the best move in the given position(black to move) . I thought it would be 'Be6' , But the engine gave 'c5' , which weakens the 'd5' square . I want to know the plan behind the move 'c5' if it is the best move.

# Answer
When I play a move and the engine says some other move is better (which is to say, all the time), I play my move to see what the punishment is going to be. Once I understand why my move isn't good, I back the game up and play the engine's suggestion. Usually it's pretty clear.

In this case it isn't. This is one of those cases where the engine is selection a wholly inhuman move in order to shave a few fractions of a pawn from the position's evaluation.

This variation, Black holds on to his material and thus his chances. One Bishop is superb, the other is better than White's bad white-squared bishop. His Rooks are on the open files. His Knight is prepared to leap onto `d4`, a move made possible by the anti-positional `1... c5`

```

    [White "Stockfish 5"]
    [Black "R K"]
    [Title "1... c5 variant"]
    [FEN "1rb2rk1/5pb1/p1pp1np1/q6p/2PBP2P/2N2P2/PP1Q2P1/3RKB1R b - - 0 1"]

1... c5 2.Be3 Nd7 3.Be2 Re8 4.Kf2 Nf8 5.Rc1 Ne6 6.b3 Qd8 7.Nd5 a5 8.Nc3 Bb7 9.Nb5 Be5

```

Stockfish rates White's advantage at .7; that is, about 70% of a pawn.

With `1... Be6`, the engine falls into a more human-looking mode of play. Be6 does little and gives Black's pieces no synergy. He presents White with few challenges. In many lines, Black exchanges Queens on d2 because he's got nothing else. When Black is down a pawn and White's King is exposed, to exchange Queens is to beg for a draw. In this line, Black's constricted position leaves him no dynamic moves and he settles for trading off most of his pieces.

```

[White "Stockfish 5"]
[Black "R K"]
[Title "1... Be6"]
    [FEN "1rb2rk1/5pb1/p1pp1np1/q6p/2PBP2P/2N2P2/PP1Q2P1/3RKB1R b - - 0 1"]

    1... Be6 2.b3 Rfd8 3.Na4 Qc7 4.Qf4 Qe7 5.Kf2 c5 6.Ba1 Bd7 7.Nc3 Bc6 8.Be2 Ne8 9.Nd5 Bxd5 10.exd5 Bxa1 11.Rxa1 Nf6 12.Rae1 Nd7 13.Qg5 Re8 14.Qxe7 Rxe7 15.f4 Rbe8 16.Bf3 Kg7 17.Rxe7

```

...with a score of +1, if you believe such things.

All that being said, Black is going to have to work awfully hard to win back the fraction of a pawn. I am sure the way is fraught with peril. Perhaps this is the price of dropping a pawn.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The move c5 is obviously anti-positional. So the purpose must be tactical.

```
[Title "Anti-positional c5"]
[FEN "1rb2rk1/5pb1/p1pp1np1/q6p/2PBP2P/2N2P2/PP1Q2P1/3RKB1R b - - 0 1"]

1... c5 2. Be3 Rxb2 3. Qxb2 Nxe4 4. Bd2 Nxd2 (4... Bxc3 5. fxe4) (4... Nxc3) 5. Kxd2

```

1…c5 2.Be3 Rxb2 3.Qxb2 Nxe4 is the obvious try. But after 4.Bd2 the position is pretty tricky because 4…Nd2 fails to 5.Kxd2, Bxc3 fails to fxe4 and Nxc3 steps into a selfpin. But the selfpin cannot be exploited by white because black has Re8+/Qe5+ coming up. This looks like a pretty crushing attack.

If white prefers to exchange the Bd4 for the Nf6, then the weak d5 square is more than balanced by the weak black squares in whites position. Bd4 is a much bigger threat than Nd5.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: strategy, tactics, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Why isn't 6. Be3 popular in this Sicilian Defense line?
Why isn't `6.Be3`, with the "English Attack" idea, really popular against `1. e4, c5 2. Nf3, Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4, Nf6 5. Nc3, d6`?

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "10"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Be3

```

Although it's very popular against the Najdorf and Scheveningen variations? Is `...Nc6` that strong, compared to `...e6` or `...a6`?

# Answer
There is the following line, similar to what happens if black reacts the same way in the Najdorf:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be3 Ng4 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 g5
9.Bg3 Bg7

```

This is a mess, but Yermolinsky argues that the extra developing move (...Nc6 instead of ...a6) black has compared to the Najdorf version should make this relatively better.

So if white wants to play the English Attack here, it is more usual to play **6.f3** first and only then Be3.

But there is another reason that is at least as important: **6.Bg5** (the Richter-Rauzer attack) is really good, and there is no good road to equality known for black, as far as I know.
> 6 votes

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


# Question
Title: Why is 5. Bd3 considered a strong move against the Kan variation?
Why is 5. Bd3 considered a strong move against the Kan variation of the Sicilian Defense:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Bd3

```

You very rarely see the Bd3 move played against any other variation of the Sicilian...

# Answer
The difference is that in the Kan white exchanges the knight on c6. In other sicilians this would be a concession, but here black has already played a6, which will not be particular useful after Nxc6 bxc6. In the other sicilians, if white doesn't exchange the Nc6, it will often go to e5 and threaten to exchange a Bd3, that's why the bishop often isn't well placed there. The plan connected to Bd3 is of course to play e5 sooner or later.
> 2 votes

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


# Question
Title: What's the difference between a USCF 1600 and 1700
What aspects are 1700 generally stronger than 1600 chess player?s

I'm a 1600 chess player. I can defeat 1600 chess players, but I lose to 1700. I was wondering what makes a 1700 stronger than a 1600? What can I do as a 1600 to start winning against 1700 chess players?

# Answer
> 6 votes
This is difficult to answer. They are generally stronger in some or all of the following areas:

* Tactics
* Endgames
* Planning
* Recognition of positional features
* Openings

However, they may be weaker in some of those areas than a 1600. My point is that there is no well-defined set of knowledge that makes someone a 1700-level player. They have just enough of a hodge-podge of experience and maybe some studying that they can stumble into wins against those with less experience. In fact, when you get to 1700 from 1600, you probably won't feel a tangible difference in the way you think about the game or make moves. Your results will simply be just a little better.

As for how to win against them: play better chess than they do. Study the things that I mentioned above (although I would avoid openings). One piece of advice that I've heard before for generating upsets is to make the game as complicated as possible, to maximize the likelihood that your opponent misses something major.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I agree with the answer from Cleveland, but as somebody who has gone 126 to 139 ECF (1645 to 1742 FIDE according to the official translation) over the last year I thought I'd add just a few words on what I found. I have a very direct, tactical style, and for me the main things were

* Working **HARD** on my tactics (I try to do at least a problem or two each day on http://chesstempo.com/)
* Looking more carefully at my openings, especially the more critical variations (e.g. The Austrian Attack in the Pirc, The Flick Knife Attack in the Modern Benoni)
* Playing more and reviewing my games more carefully afterwards
* A bit on endings - I find endings hard (they're much too complicated for my little mind, give me a nice 150 attack to face any day) so this was mostly trying to firm up on what I already thought I knew, not learning a whole lot more

But as Cleveland says it will depend on the player. If you are a schemer who declines the Morra or faces e4 with the Caro Kann I suspect your priorities might be different. But good tactics never hurts anybody except your opponent!

---
Tags: learning, tournament
---


# Question
Title: If I like both the Caro-Kann and the Slav, is it a good idea to answer 1. d4 with 1... c6?
I was just wondering, if as Black I normally play the Caro-Kann and the Slav (but I slightly prefer the Caro-Kann), is it a good idea to answer 1. d4 with 1... c6!?

I looked in an opening database, but it looks like 1... c6 is extremely rare and is only played 0.3% of the time. What's wrong with it? Doesn't it just transpose into either a Slav or a Caro-Kann?

Does it have a psychological effect on weak opponents? Maybe they will be a little surprised, and thus they will take slightly more time to make their second move, and so it would be an effective subterfuge especially in blitz.

# Answer
> 12 votes
I don't think it's a good idea. Firstly, no 1.d4 player will go for 2.e4, unless they are also 1.e4 players and really, really good at playing against the Caro-Kann.

More importantly, you may like to play the Slav against d4+c4, and the Caro against d4+e4, but so far white has only played 1.d4. You lose options in case white doesn't follow up with a quick c4 or e4.

Mostly that's lines like the London (say 2.Nf3 and 3.Bf4) or the Colle (with Nf3, e3, Bd3, possibly b3 and Bb2, etc). Against both of those, black's best chance to get an active game are with a quick ...c5, but if you do that you've already given up a tempo.

So there is a downside, and zero upside.

# Answer
> 4 votes
You are absolutely right to think that it is a good idea to answer **1.d4** with **1...c6**, especially if you like the Caro-Kann more than the Slav. Do not let the low percentage for the move bother you. I also checked in chessbase's Big Database and found that it is played about 4.5% of the time. However, that is not because the move is weak, but because the overwhelming majority of the players prefer to play **1...Nf6** or **1...d5**, because not everyone wants to play the Caro Kann.

**1...c6** may have a psychological effect on weak opponents and if they hesitate to immediately play **2. e4** or **2. c4**, then you know that you caught them off guard for a moment. Gary Kasparov himself played **1...c6** in a blitz game.

Hristos Banikas vs Garry Kasparov 0-1, 2001

# Answer
> 1 votes
C6 is a good move to "throw people off."

Sometimes, you will get e4 in return and go into your Caro-Kann.

Most of the time, the reply will be c4. But even the Slav has some advantages. Specifically, there may later be a chance to play d5xc4, queens gambit *accepted,* with some chance of holding the pawn.

# Answer
> 1 votes
According to current chess opening strategy **1... c6** is not considered very useful if White continues with the London, Torre or Colle Systems, unless you want to follow with some sort of King's Indian or Modern Defense setup, which does not seem to be your case from your question and opening preferences, so as a Slav player I'd rather play **1... d5** vs **1. d4.** On the other side, the London, Torre and Colle aren't considered particularly challenging for Black from a theoretical point of view, so at the end of the day it is a matter of personal choice and tastes.

---
Tags: opening, blitz, 1.d4, caro-kann, slav-defense
---


# Question
Title: How to display figures instead of letters in position analysis notation in ChessBase?
I just installed Deep Fritz 14 with ChessBase. By default the notation in deep position analysis looks like this (only letters, no chess figures):

I would like to make it look like this:

How do I do this?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Nevermind, figured it out.

File \> options \> Clocks+Notations \> Figurines radio button

---
Tags: software, chessbase, fritz
---


# Question
Title: Analyze, improvement - My game without blunders?
When I first created this account I posted about how I am in a slump and kept blundering important games.

As of today, I think I have gotten out of that slump and I understand CHESS much better.

Here's my game, and I think I have no blunders here:

```
[Event "Unbalance Chess"]
[Site "windows"]
[Date "2015.09.20"]
[Round ""]
[White "Level 19"]
[Black "4444"]
[Result "0-1"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 1"]

1... c5 2. Qf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. e5 d5 6. exf6 dxc4 7. Qxb7 Nc6 8.
Ne2 exf6 9. Nbc3 Rb8 10. Qa6 Qe7 11. O-O Nd4 12. Qxc4 Be6 13. Qd3 Rd8 14. f3 c4
15. Qe4 f5 16. Qe5 f6 17. Qa5 g6 18. Re1 Nc6 19. Qb5 Bd7 20. Nb1 Ne5 21. Qa5
Bh6 22. f4 Nc6 23. Qc3 g5 24. Qxc4 gxf4 25. a3 f3 26. gxf3 Ne5 27. Qb3 Be6 28.
Qc3 Rg8+ 29. Ng3 f4 30. Kh1 fxg3 31. hxg3 Rxg3 32. b3 Qg7 33. Re2 Rg1+ 34. Kh2
Bf4# 0-1

```

If there are any blunders please analyze and help me improve my practical play (tactics).

# Answer
As noted in the comments, after 7.Qxb7??, the reply ...Bc6! simply traps the queen, leaving White completely busted. This may be the most obvious thing both players failed to notice in this game, and one of the few concrete ones I will bring up in this answer.

To me, it looks like this game is not an elite game, and it would be interesting to know your overall strength. I can assure you(without even analysing deeply), that black made more "mistakes" in this game than just missing 7...Bc6, but they may be more or less relevant depending on your level of self critisism, and ambition.

Let's take for example the position after 10.Qa6 by White: Did you consider playing ...Nb4, threatening both the queen on a6 AND a nice fork on c2? To me, not considering the move could be considered as a mistake, but at that point you already had quite a nice position, so most reasonable moves by black should be enough to win by then.

But there are other considerations to be made in the game. I think, that in this game, you did not develop your f8 bishop efficiently. This I view as a mistake, but it's not a tactical mistake, rather a positional one. But White never capitalised on this in any way, so you weren't punished for it. And this is the important point I wanted to make with this answer:

In this game, you outplayed your opponent, and the reason for it was that your opponent didn't play well enough to stop you from bullying his queen around the board. Therefore, your opponent will have a much easier time to learn from this game than you will. Your opponent got the "You play badly, and here's why"-treatment from you this game, but you didn't get the same treatment from anybody! Therefore you think you played great, no matter what the reality of your play is like.

This is the reason why it's easier to learn from your losses than from your victories in general. I would advise you to go through this game yourself with a bit more self-critisism, if you really want to take anything from it.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Which interface protocol should I implement for my chess engine?
I am writing a chess engine in C++ https://github.com/RomainGoussault/Deepov.

I know there are several interface protocols out there (UCI, Winboard protocol, etc) and I don't know which to implement. I would like one that:

* enables my engine to play online tournaments
* has several GUI for Linux, Windows and iOS
* has some sort of documentation

Thanks

# Answer
> 12 votes
There're only two protocols - UCI and Winboard. Winboard is an old protocol and not really being used nowadays. Crafty is the only major engine still supporting the Winboard protocol, but it's only because the engine is also very old. UCI is a newer protocol developed by Shredder, and is used everywhere - Windows, Macs, Linux, Android, iOS etc. UCI is really the only protocol you should consider.

1. UCI is supported everywhere
2. Every chess GUI other than xboard supports UCI, such as, Chessbase, Scid, Arena etc. Even xboard can connect to a UCI engine by something known as Polyglot.
3. UCI documentation is at http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/UCIProtocol.html

Winboard has more or less obsoleted because the protocol is more complicated than the cleaner UCI. Winboard is a stated protocol, it means the engine state depends on the previous iterations, whereas UCI is easier to deal with as you only have to supply with your current FEN or a move-list.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I don't think it's possible to create a GUI or engine as separate apps in iOS. iOS prevents one app from invoking another as part of its security setup. An engine author has to write the GUI, and integrate it with the engine before he can apply to Apple for approval for release on the App Store. This may be true of Windows RT as well. Android has GUIs and engines.

Also apart from UCI and CECP (Chess Engine Communication Protocol, i.e. winboard/xboard), Chessbase has its own proprietary protocol. Many of the strongest engines use UCI, while beginning programmers quite commonly use CECP.

# Answer
> -3 votes
Most GUI support engines either in UCI or Winboard, UCI becoming more of a standard and popular these days. But, typically if you want your engine to be easily pluggable to any GUI (in Windows or Linux), then you should have an "exe" or executable which can be pointed to by these GUI programs. If you are building the engine using Java, then I am unsure how you would be able to convert this to an executable to be used by the GUI. The same thing applies to be able to play online tournaments. Even if you are planning to provide a web-service kind of interface for your engine, I don't think it can participate in engine competitions.

---
Tags: engines, software, programming
---


# Question
Title: What are the ideas behind the Short variation in Advance Caro-Kann?
What are the main strategic and tactical ideas behind the so-called Short variation in Advance Caro-Kann? I mean this line:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Be2

```

Isn't White's position a bit passive, and furthermore with Black's Bishop already developed in f5? Why do GMs play this line?

# Answer
> 14 votes
Here are a few observations regarding the line:

1. Replacing the 5th move with 5. Bd3 is a bad move. Black trades bad bishop for good with 5...Bxd3
2. Unlike the Nunn-Shirov attack (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nc3 e6 5. g4), White aims to get his King to safety by castling before any fireworks begin. To facilitate this the Bishop has to make way. We've already ruled out moving to d3, a fianchetto would be terribly slow and highlight the weakness of the bishop being restricted by its own pawns, and lastly there are no other safe squares
3. White knows that Black's pawn break ...c5 will use an extra tempo, and if it comes too soon then White's safe King and lead in development will favour the first player. Often Black will play an ...f6 break instead
4. Regarding a ...c5 break, White has the option to reinforce the pawn with ...c3, compared to the Nunn-Shirov attack where a knight restricts that advance
5. Again to restrict the ...c5 break, White will often develop the dark square bishop to e3 to overprotect d4. Black's minor pieces often settle on the following squares: ...Nb8-d7, ...Bf8-g7, ...Ng8-h6(!?)
6. Black does not fear the bishop taking the h6 knight. The Bishop pair and semi open g-file provide ample compensation for the doubled h-pawns, which are not easy to attack. Often White will have to un-double these pawns for defensive purposes
7. White often tries to gun down the light square bishop with the f3 knight, to win the 2 bishops. Black often plays ...h5 to gain king side space and give the light square bishop a flight square
8. Extra: White also plays for the c4 break to dissolve the centre. Black often gives White an isolated Queen's pawn with ...dxc4, which often results in White losing time with the recapture Bxc4. Thus ensues the dynamic contest of White's semi-open files and potential piece play in the middle game compared to Black's solid structure that will favour the second player in the endgame

If you want to know (a lot) more, then check out *The Caro-Kann: Move by Move* by Cyrus Lakdawala. Also, this chess.com link has a discussion on the line: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/advance-shirov-vs-advance-short-in-the-caro-kann

---
Tags: opening, caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: Why is Nb5 a strong move here? Why is there a guaranteed material gain?
Taken from:

Chess Academy: A subtle blunder

```
[Title "White to move"]
[FEN "r1bqr1k1/pp1nbpp1/4pn1p/2pp4/2PP1B2/P1NBPN2/1P3PPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

```

White can play Nb5 followed by Nc7 but wouldn't Black play Rf8 beforehand?

# Answer
> 17 votes
This is a familiar tactic I often get to use myself in another opening line. If black plays `1... Rf8`, then comes `2. Bc7! Qe8 3. Nd6 Bxd6 4. Bxd6` and black loses the exchange anyway.

```
[Title "White to move"]
[FEN "r1bqr1k1/pp1nbpp1/4pn1p/2pp4/2PP1B2/P1NBPN2/1P3PPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nb5 Rf8 2. Bc7! Qe8 3. Nd6 Bxd6 4. Bxd6

```

Chess is about patterns. Since I was familiar with the pattern, I spotted this tactic immediately.

---
Tags: puzzles
---


# Question
Title: Von Popiel - Marco, Monte Carlo 1902, how to win as black?
In the game: Von Popiel - Marco, Monte Carlo 1902: why would Black win with Bg1?

Ultimate Blunder

Puzzle

The white player is about to lose the Queen. Does that alone immediately constitute as a loss in that level of Chess play?

# Answer
> 10 votes
> The white player is about to lose the Queen. Does that alone immediately constitute as a loss in that level of Chess play?

Well, no. The problem with White position is that he lacks any real counterplay. He has weaknesses he can not defend in the long run, especially pawn at `a2`, and his piece coordination is not good enough to defend against the might of the queen.

Below illustrative lines prove that:

```
[Title "Von Popiel - Marco, Monte Carlo 1902"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "7k/1b1r2p1/p6p/1p2qN2/3bP3/3Q4/P5PP/1B1R3K b - - 0 1"]

1...Bg1 2.Kxg1 Rxd3 3.Bxd3 (3.Rxd3 Bxe4 4.Re3 Qa1 5.Re1 (5.Rxe4 Qxb1+ 6.Kf2 (6.Re1?? Qxe1#) 6...Qxe4-+) 5...Bxf5! 6.Re8+ Kh7-+) 3...Bxe4 4.Bxe4 (4.Re1?? Qc5+ 5.Ne3 (5.Re3 Bxf5!-+) 5...Bxd3-+) 4...Qxe4 5.Ng3 Qc2 6.Rd8+ Kh7 7.h3 (7.a3 Qc5+ 8.Kh1 Qc1+) 7...Qxa2-+

```

Black will simply take the `a2` pawn and win by marching his extra 2 queenside pawns, and there is nothing White can do to stop it. Meanwhile, Queen easily defends any mating attack Rook + Knight conjure up by simply going to the `a1-h8` diagonal with the move like `...Qb2` or `...Qc3`...

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes - loss of the queen for insufficient compensation at most levels of chess will result in the resignation of the player who has lost the queen. The difficulty lies in judging what amounts to sufficient compensation, but given the queen is such an important piece more often than not it is fairly obvious.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Bg1 wins for Black, because if White takes the Black rook with his Queen, the Black Queen captures at h2 checkmate. If White takes the Black Bishop, it ends up being a a trade of the White Queen for a Black Bishop and a Black Rook, because Black's bishop move uncovers an attack on the white queen. Queen is traditionally scored as 9 points and the rook 5 while the bishop is three. Therefore Black is one point to the good in position he thought he had lost. Typically a one point advantage is not sufficient to FORCE victory, but because it is so late in the game and the Black Queen has great mobility and threatens mate on the back rank if the white rook leaves...my quick analysis is that this is a win for Black as he will likely pick off the white bishop or the white rook in a few moves.

---
Tags: analysis, master-games
---


title: ChessCafe.com RIP?

text:
# Question
Title: ChessCafe.com RIP?
The latest ChessCafe.com article - https://chesscafe.com/the-skittles-room/on-hiatus/ \- has this to say:

> We would like to thank those who have supported ChessCafe with a purchase of product and subsequent membership. However, subscriptions have fallen just shy of what is needed to maintain our stable of great columnists. Therefore, we are taking a three-month hiatus from posting new content

I suspect "just shy" is a euphemism.

Does anybody have better information on when / whether ChessCafe.com is going to come back to life?

# Answer
Tim Harding, one of the writers for ChessCafe.com, reports that he hasn't been paid for the last two articles he wrote. The conclusion has to be that it isn't coming back.

The internet is free and people are very reluctant to pay for content, even content as good as that which was provided by ChessCafe.com.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: websites
---


# Question
Title: Why do most beginners play this line agains the Caro-Kann?
Why do most beginners play this line against the Caro-Kann? **1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. d4** and **5. Nc3?**

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. d4 AnyMove 5. Nc3

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
It's not the best way to play against the Caro-Kann, but it's good enough for beginners. It follows basic opening principles: develop your pieces, fight for the center, knights before bishops, though it does violate the rule about moving a piece (or pawn?) more than once. It's true that the Knight on c3 blocks the natural c4 advance, but beginners can't be expected to know that (see below).

If you're seeing this a lot from opponents, don't worry. It will go away (but not completely) as your rating improves and you start playing stronger players. Beginners are commonly told not to study openings, which they interpret to mean don't even learn the first 3 or 4 moves.

# Answer
> -1 votes
In my experience playing chess exd5, beginners play exd5 because they usually think that taking d5 will help them. But that's my opinion.

---
Tags: opening, beginner, caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: What is the percent of players in the top X that are women for different values of X?
I have already found some numbers thanks to this website: http://www.ferimex.com/icc/frl.php?list=0&country=0&title=0&sex=0&year=0&old=0&cat=0&size=9&update=yes

* Top 50: 0 = 0%
* Top 100: 2 = 2%
* Top 200: 2 = 1%
* Top 300: 3 = 1%
* Top 400: 4 = 1%
* Top 500: 6 = 1.2%
* Top 600: 12 = 2%
* Top 700: 15 = 2.14%
* Top 800: 16 = 2%
* Top 900: 19 = 2.11%
* Top 1000: 29 = 2.9%
* Top 1100: 33 = 3%
* Top 1200: 36 = 3%
* Top 1300: 43 = 3.31%
* Top 1400: 45 = 3.21%
* Top 1500: 45 = 3%
* Top 1600: 49 = 3.06%
* Top 1700: 54 = 3.18%
* Top 1800: 57 = 3.17%
* Top 1900: 61 = 3.21%
* Top 2000: 65 = 3.25%

And I plotted the graph:

It's clearly increasing.

But I couldn't go higher than top 2000. I hope that someone will be able to extend the graph for higher values (for higher values the graph should be smoother because there will be less statistical fluctuations).

# Answer
> 8 votes
What I would suggest you do which will allow you to get these statistics for yourself is to go to the FIDE ratings advanced search page. There you can choose options like:

rating 2400 - 3000

sex: both

exclude inactive: tick

and you will get the answer "2184" followed by a list of players and their details. Repeat this with "sex: female" and you will get 66 followed by the list.

Repeat this for 2300 and you get total: 5073, female: 185, so percentage is 3.65%.

For 2000 you get 1473 / 31866 = 4.62%

For 1500 you get 7167 / 100730 = 7.12% and so on.

This way you can go as far as you want and in whatever detail you want.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Like @Brian Towers, I suggest using FIDE data. However, I suggest you to download instead the full rating lists and analyse them using some kind of statistical software (like R).

According to the FIDE rating list of September 2015 there are 128196 active players, 12320 of which are women, almost 10%. As you can see in the graph below, the proportion of women players increases in the lower categories. And it decreases dramatically near the elite.

---
Tags: statistics, women
---


# Question
Title: What are the possible results of a game?
What is the range of possible results of a chess game?

I am asking this question, because I am developing an XML schema for recording chess games; sort of like an XML version of PGN, and I need a way to classify and record the game result.

The list of possible results that I came up with:

1. Win for white, by virtue of checkmate.
2. Win for white because black resigns.
3. Win for white by arbiter declaration.
4. Same as 1, 2 and 3, but for black.
5. Draw by reason of stalemate.
6. Draw by agreement of players.
7. Draw by declaration of arbiter.
8. Draw by claim of Three-fold repetition by white
9. Draw by claim of score-sheet written intention of Three-fold repetition by white
10. Draw by claim of 50 move rule by white
11. Draw by claim of score-sheet written intention of 50 move rule by white
12. Same as reasons 9 .. 11, but claim made by black
13. Game abandoned
14. Game adjourned

Is there any thing wrong with my list? Is it exhaustive? Are there other ways a game can end?

# Answer
In addition to the things mentioned, at least two categories are missing in my opinion. The first one is "A oversteps time when B does not have enough mating material" and the second one is "A didn't arrive at the chessboard in time and B won".

Let's structure it a bit better so we make sure we don't miss anything. I have marked some of them with an asterisk to indicate that the cases exist but may well be handled by other categories.

1. **Game scheduled to start.**
2. (\*) **Game postponed.** (If we have *game in progress*, we should have this one as well. Otherwise, put it under 1.)
3. **Game finished before both players have made at least one move.** This is important because whether a game will be rated or not depends on whether every player has played at least one move.

a) White arrived at the chessboard after default time. (`-:+`, *§ 6.7*)

b) Both players arrived at the chessboard after default time. (`-:-` or `0:0`)

4. **Game in progress.** (As mentioned in the other answer.)
5. (\*) **Game adjourned.** (*Appendix E.* I think there are still events in the world where this happens, but none of these are actually serious enough to warrant this category. I guess FIDE will remove it over the course of the next ten years. However, it is possible on some internet servers (e. g. FICS), so don't put it too far away if you want to cater for that as well. If not, it should be 4.)
6. **Game finished according to the Basic Rules of Play.** (The "basic rules of play" are the first five articles of the Laws of Chess; the other articles are called "Competition rules".)

a) White wins by checkmate. (`1:0`, *§ 5.1a*)

b) Black resigns. (`1:0`, *§ 5.1b*)

c) (\*) Game drawn by stalemate. (`½:½`, *§ 5.2a*) This is a special case of d), but, undoubtedly, it is a *very* special case and deserves its own category.

d) Game drawn by dead position. (`½:½`, *§ 5.2b*)

e) Game drawn by mutual agreement. (`½:½`, *§ 5.2c*)

7. **Game finished by the clock.**

a) (\*) Black's flag falls during the n-th time control and the player has not completed the required number of moves. (*§ 6.4* in conjunction with *§ 6.3a*) You may merge a) and b), but then, unless you add time indicators, the two cases are indistinguishable. (`1:0`)

b) Black's flag falls during the last time control. (`1:0`)

c) (standard) Both flags have fallen and it is not clear which one fell first. (*§ 6.11*) (`½:½`, *§ 6.11b*)

d) (\*) (standard) In the last time period, both flags have fallen but Black's flag fell first. (Can be put under a) or b)) (`1:0`)

e) (rapid and blitz) Both flags have fallen. (`½:½`, *Appendix A, § 4c*)

f) White's flag falls, but Black has not enough mating material. Draw. Note that this is not necessarily 6d. (e. g. KB v KQ is always at least drawn for black). (You actually need this for a), b), and d) separately. See note below the list.) (`0:½`)

8. **Game finished according to article nine of the laws of chess.** (The drawn game.)

a) Drawn by claim of three-fold repetition by white. (`½:½`, *§ 9.2b*)

b) Drawn by claim of score-sheet written intention of three-fold repetition by white. (`½:½`, *§ 9.2a*)

c) (\*) Drawn because X claimed draw by three-fold repetition and implicit draw offer was accepted by Y. Could be regarded as a normal draw offer. (`½:½`, *§ 9.2* in conjunction with *§ 9.1.b.3*)

d) Drawn by claim of 50 move rule by white. (`½:½`, *§ 9.3b*)

e) Drawn by claim of score-sheet written intention of 50 move rule by white. (`½:½`, *§ 9.3a*)

f) (\*) Drawn because X claimed draw by 50 move rule and implicit draw offer was accepted by Y. Could be regarded as a normal draw offer. (`½:½`, *§ 9.2* in conjunction with *§ 9.1.b.3*)

g) Drawn by article *9.6a* (the same position has appeared, as in 9.2b, for at least five consecutive alternate moves by each player, new rules!) (`½:½`)

h) Drawn by article *9.6b* (any consecutive series of 75 moves have been completed by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, new rules!) (`½:½`)

9. **Game results in a quickplay finish.** (*appendix G*, only in standard and rapidplay without increment) Maybe add an indicator where the increment time mode starts if appendix G4 is applied. In those two minutes, all other things mentioned here may well happen (checkmate, illegal moves, whatever).

a) Arbiter declares game drawn immediately. (`½:½`)

b) Arbiter awards extra two minutes and declares game drawn afterwards. (`½:½`)

d) (in games without the supervision of an arbiter) An external arbiter decides according to G6.

10. **Game finished by decision of an arbiter because of a breach of rules of one player.**

a) (standard games) Game lost because of two irregular moves by Black. (`1:0`, *§ 7.5b*).

b) (standard games) Like a), but White does not have enough winning material (`½:0`, *§ 7.5b*).

c) (\*) (old rules, standard and rapidplay) Game lost because of three irregular moves by Black. (`1:0`) (It is very unlikely these cases have been recorded for past tournaments.)

d) (\*) (old rules, standard and rapidplay) Like c), but White does not have enough winning material. (`½:0`) (It is very unlikely these cases have been recorded for past tournaments.)

e) (rapidplay and blitz) An incorrect move by Black is oberserved by the arbiter or correctly claimed by White. (`1:0`)

f) (rapidplay and blitz) Like e), but White does not have enough winning material. (`½:0`)

g) (blitz) The arbiter observes both kings being in check or an unfinished pawn promotion and the position is still on the board after one move. (`½:½`, Appendix A, §4a.)

h) Black brings a mobile phone and/or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue (`1:0`, note that White wins *even with insufficient material*!).

i) Game finished by decision of an arbiter because of misconduct by Black. (`1:0`, § 12.9 decision)

11. **Game finished by decision of an arbiter because both players persistently refuse to comply with the laws of chess.** Note that both players lose in this case. (`0:0`, Maybe this should be 10l))
12. (\*) **Game finished because of an irregularity at the start of the game.** Now, I hope a game at a level worth recording will never be replayed according to *§ 7.2* (wrong initial placement of pieces). Additionally, semantically, there will still only be one game, so this should not be an end-of-game marker.
13. (\*) **Result to be decided.**
14. (\*) **Game abandoned.**
15. (\*) **Result unknown.** (e. g. notation incomplete)

Another note: maybe one should have an *insufficient material* marker. Then you can simplify a couple of the above cases.

In the case of a team event, for example, you need two different results to represent the game properly: For example, here in Germany, if two players sit in the wrong places, one of the games will be declared lost even after the game has finished. ~~All the cases where this can happen are in a team context, though, so it should be possible to implement this in a different way.~~ Recent development of electronic cheating means this is very much a possibility: the game where the player has been found to be cheating will certainly be declared lost for him. However, it might be decided that for the competition, all games will be declared lost, but they still count towards the rating (although even this is a corner case).

Yes, tournament chess can be complicated.
> 15 votes

# Answer
First thing that comes to mind is

Draw by mutual insufficient mating material

As far as I'm aware, that doesn't fall under any of your categories. I'll add more if I think of them.

Edit:

White wins because black runs out of time, and the converse
Draw because black ran out of time and white has insufficient material to deliver mate, and the converse
Draw because both clocks read 0:00 and no claim was made before they reached that state
> 4 votes

# Answer
15. White wins on time
16. Black wins on time
17. In progress (often seen in PGN)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rules
---


title: How do chess engines "think"?

text:
# Question
Title: How do chess engines "think"?
What I want to know is how engines are programmed to find moves. I'm sure they first calculate the most forcing lines such as captures and checks. But what about subtle, deep positional moves? They seem to find them very quickly as well (Generally speaking. Of course they miss such moves now and then). As in, how are they programmed to look for quiet moves/positional ideas? They can't just brute force every move, since that'd take too long, so there should be some clever way for them to arrive at the best moves really quickly. I'm interested in knowing this because I think it'd help players to think over the board in the real world as well.

# Answer
In a general way chess engines use a decision tree. The root of the tree is the current position and has a child node for each position that can be made by making a legal move. Each of these nodes in turn have a child node for the positions that can be reached by making a legal move from them. The engine pushes the tree out to a depth defined by its capabilities and the time it is allowed to "think". Positions that can be reached in more than one way are simply cross referenced so that they will not have to be considered more than once. Once the tree is created the computer uses a set of weighted rules to analyze the final positions in the tree and starts to remove those that are undesirable or that the opponent can prevent it from reaching. The tree is cut down this way until only one move remains and the computer makes that move.

http://www.chess.com/blog/zaifrun has series or articles on creating a chess engine if you want a more in depth look at how they work.
> 28 votes

# Answer
You're asking a pretty complex question, but it's good to go back to basics. There are a couple of concepts to consider:

## Evaluation

If a (real) player is shown a position and asked "who is winning this game?", how do they go about deciding? Most likely, they will check a few basic things, such as: material differences, the degree to which pieces have been developed or are positioned "well", doubled / isolated / connected / passed pawns, (controlled) open files, how far up the board the pawns are.

Now, if you had to, you could come up with a systematic way to calculate a position score based on the above. You could decide, for example, that a pawn is worth 1 point, and that a passed pawn is worth 0.3 points more. Isolated or doubled pawns might be worth a bit less, etc. If you add up everything, you get an estimate value for the immediate position at hand.

This is known as evaluation, and basically all chess programs have a way to evaluate positions (ignoring novelty AI chess engines which are typically very weak).

> But what about subtle, deep positional moves?

Well, we've only barely scratched the surface of position evaluation. The actual implementation of an evaluation function could be simplistic, to allow for more positions to be evaluated per second (albeit in a rough fashion), or more complex, leading to less positions evaluated, but with a higher degree of confidence. It's not unusual for the evaluation function to take into account hundreds or even thousands of separate pieces of information.

## Search

I've specifically left out something from the above, which most real players will immediately think about - is there any way to immediately win the game for either side? Any mates or "hanging" pieces visible? Although it's easy to trivialise this, it's anything but trivial.

What does it mean for a player to have *full* confidence in a combination? In the end, it boils down to having calculated all options. Real players typically won't do this (except for trivial or very forced mates), most of the time we will only consider a handful of options, and rule out others which seem to be "non-constructive" or obviously leading to a loss. We often make mistakes during this calculation, e.g. we may realise that a change in move orders makes threats evaporate, etc. The point is that to be completely sure of a combination, you actually need to calculate all the way to its conclusion, assuming each player will only make the best possible move available to them (this is referred to as "min/max").

Now, given that chess has a much larger search space (this is what "all possible moves in the future" is referred to) than what is feasible for a computer to calculate, compromises need to be made. Just like humans, computers can decide to disregard entire lines of thought based on certain criteria. This is known as *heuristics*. It's worthwhile noting that while you can only be really sure of a combination if you brute force it, a complex evaluation function can often detect the presence of threats (e.g. we could count forks, skewer opportunities, etc, to guide a search in that direction).

In the end, although computers are extremely fast, it's the heuristics which allow them to calculate so deep. That said, you may be surprised how deep modern engines calculate fully, typically it's beyond 3 moves, even in quick games.

## Conclusion / combining it all

So, to summarise - evaluation functions have a lot of intelligence built into them (i.e. they take into consideration more things than your average human player), heuristics allow the computer to cull lines of thought it decides probably aren't going to end well, and computers are extremely, extremely fast. Add them up, and they're pretty difficult to beat.
> 24 votes

# Answer
It is just impossible for computers to look deep enough (25 ply and more) and check every possible move.

What makes is possible is the technique called Alpha-beta pruning which means that computers, similar to humans (but way better) follow only the promising continuations.

They evaluate the positions constantly (based on some precoded rules, valuing material, king safety, activity, pawn structures etc) and look into variations that seem to be leading them towards the best position.

It is still close to magic how they manage to do it efficiently enough to evaluate millions of these positions in a second.

So to summarise- you are correct, they can not look at all the moves if they play strategic chess, but they can very quickly look at decent moves. The problem is still with the very long term plans and horizon to which they can see, but this is being worked on (Rybka analyses much slower, but plays much more positional chess, while Houdini is romantic at it's 'mechanical heart' calculating more moves and playing more aggressively). Even computers have their own styles!
> 7 votes

# Answer
I agree with the answers.

I remember GM Roman Dzindzichashvili talking about it, in one of Roman's labs videos, i don't remember what video it was (if anyone knows the details please edit my answer).

Roman said that the developer of Fritz engine is his friend. So Roman tested Fritz to see how good it was, and the developer told Roman that in order for fritz to make complex decisions (sacrificing materials in exchange for positional advantage for example) they had to change the value of the pieces, like telling the program that a bad bishop is worth 1 point, a bishop on an open diagonal is worth 7 points, knights are worth 5 points in close positions...

I don't know the exact numbers for each piece but that's how it works, and now your engine won't have any problem sacrificing a bad bishop or whatever if you can tell him the value of each piece in each position.

**EDIT**

See also The Chess Programming Wiki.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Alpha-beta pruning simply means that if you find a line that turns out badly for you, you stop looking at that candidate move, and instead try others. It is a type of backward pruning meaning that you'll never miss a good move as a result. Forward pruning, by contrast, is based more on guesswork. Futility pruning, late move reductions and razoring are types of forward pruning, and all rely on the programmer's feeling for what type of moves should be considered. A program that does a lot of forward pruning may miss out on startling sacrifices that lead to mate, but on the other hand, it eliminates a lot of really bad moves, and so can go deeper in looking at the moves it does favour.

Most engines search the first few moves at full depth examining all the possibilities. If no move fails high (i.e. seems clearly worse than a move you've already considered), you extend the search just a bit more. In general, you continue exploring each line until you reach a quiescent position (with no checks, captures, mate threats, etc.), and then do your evaluation. Quiet moves may not be considered when they are deep in the search tree, but once you get to that actual position in the game, the engine looks at all moves, quiet and sharp alike. You can actually see this in the engine output sometimes, when an engine suddenly favours a move that it hadn't been considering a few moves back.

Engines calculate so quickly that it's not so important for them to consider which move to look at first, but for humans this is a key question. Jonathan Tisdall takes a stab at answering this in his book, Improve Your Chess Now. When you are on the attack, he suggests you look at the most violent moves first. When you are defending, you look at the most difficult lines first. He also cites positional rules of thumb (eg. centralization, coordination) when deciding which moves to look at first.

Other books that may be relevant are Emmanuel Neimann's Invisible Chess Moves and Charles Hertan's Forcing Chess Moves, both of whom argue for the importance of considering unlikely or surprising moves in sharp positions. Hertan even talks about developing 'computer eyes' for such tactics.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, positional-play, calculation, chess-algorithms, brute-force
---


# Question
Title: Are there any chess engines which try to emulate human thinking?
As I understand it chess engines mostly share the basic pattern of having a simple score for the board position and then searching forward with some sort of alpha-beta pruning or similar.

Presumably in the early days people tried to program in the thinking algorithms of a human, before finding that was very weak in a computer.

Now that we have vast computer power, are their any engines that try to do this? They will no doubt still be weak, but could be interesting nonetheless - not least in what it can teach us about how to improve our heuristics.

By "human thinking" I'm meaning things like

* Deliberately making and breaking pawn structures
* Having a plan
* Using heuristics ("knights on the rim...", "castle quickly")

To be clear, the question is about writing an engine to emulate human **thinking** not human **play**. It may (or may not) be possible to tweak alpha-beta engines to produce game play that looks human, but you could never interrogate the algorithm and ask it "why did you play that?".

# Answer
> 7 votes
In a sense, an attempt to "emulate human thinking" has been done since Atkin and Slate's Chess 4.0 in the 1970's, by tuning the evaluation function based on feeding masses of Grandmaster games through and tuning the parameters to closely mirror the players' choices.

I think you're contemplating approaches fundamentally different from the standard Alpha-Beta search paradigm though. That has proven remarkably difficult, and probably some of the best work was done with very early chess engines. Unfortunately, such approaches tend to be "brittle", because there are so many exceptions to every rule, and tactics (which searching essentially everything excels at) tends to fall down hard without it.

I think, though, you are fundamentally on the right track, in that the distinction between very strong players and weak ones is fundamentally pattern-recognition of positions based on long experience, and being able to "prune the tree" of plausible moves to look at from the start. It would seem there should be a way to store in a database knows "clusters of pieces" for which the game tree has already been partially calculated, such that if you could define the exceptions--i.e. "those pieces were there rather than here in the position I previously calculated and stored", and write a "possible move differences tree" algorithm, you could vastly increase efficiency in a manner very parallel to the way humans do it. I've given some broad design thought to this, but alas, other practical income-earning coding has always taken precedence...

# Answer
> 4 votes
Originally the Fritz-engines tried to incorporate a lot of human knowledge, which seems to be what you mean by "human thinking". The idea was to not only get the tactical strength of computers, but also the strategic depth of human experts.

Then slowly but surely engines took over that were speed optimised from a search tree point of view and it became obvious that "strategic" decisions turn up if you calculate far enough.

"Human thinking" on the other hand can also be understood as pattern recognition. This kind of thinking is emulated by neural networks and in this field a lot of progress has been made recently.

Most of the research focuses on image categorisation, but there was a very strong Go-program developed based on Neural Networks. Chess, being much more tactical, doesn't lend itself easily to this technique. There have been a very weak program and a more interesting move ordering tool based on NNs.

I recently visited a talk by Stephen Wolfram and I thought a chess answering machine would be pretty cool (The Wolfram answering machine doesn't know anything about chess).

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chris Wittington, the author of Chess System Tal, was known for arguing for a knowledge based approach to programming chess engines.

http://www.thorstenczub.de/complcss2.html

http://adamsccpages.blogspot.com/2012/07/chess-system-programs-of-chris.html

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: What happened to the Chess Cafe website?
I have followed the Chess Cafe website for years, but it appears that the website hasn't updated since late May, and clicking on some of the links sometimes leads to a 404 error message. Does anyone know what happened to the Chess Cafe website?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chesscafe announced on June 2 that the number of subscribers was too low to sustain the site and that they would go on a three month hiatus.

Whether they will ever come out of it again is anybody's guess.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think Chesscafe has bitten the dust. It's been over three months now and they are still "on hiatus."

---
Tags: online
---


# Question
Title: How do you know whether to trade one of the rook pairs in an endgame?
I've been reading *Endgame Strategy*. I've seen, in a lot of the games, trading one of the rook pairs can help. There is a chapter in the book called the 'Problem with Exchanging.' I don't know how to determine when trading one of the rooks is beneficial for me.

# Answer
One question to ask is "am I behind or ahead?" If I have some winning edge, it's best to simplify. If I'm behind, it's better to complicate the position.

After that, the question has both tactical and positional elements. If my rook is less active then my opponent's, it's better to exchange. If my rook is more active, then it's better to keep it.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: endgame, rook-endgame, trading
---


# Question
Title: How do you apply schematic thinking to one's own chess games?
I can never figure out how to come out with many micro plans in an endgame. I'm not sure in which order they should be applied as well. How do you apply schematic thinking to one's own endgames?

# Answer
> 2 votes
There is an excellent book by GM Jonathan Hawkins called "Amateur to IM" which deals with this. There are a number of stages you need to go through.

First of all when looking at a mini plan you need to consider a) will it work, or can my opponent easily stop it and b) if it does work will it actually do what I want it to do - give me a winning position, say.

So, for instance, if you can force an exchange into a BPKvK endgame you might think you have an easy win, but if the pawn is a rook's pawn on the wrong side of the board then you will be disappointed. You can only know the mini plan was a bad one if you can properly evaluate the final position.

Hawkins aims to do two things in the book. First to help you to think the right way about endgame positions so that you evaluate mini plans and quickly eliminate those that aren't going to do the job *and not waste any more time on them*. Second to help you build the knowledge of endgame structures that will enable you to correctly evaluate the final positions of your mini plans.

Hawkins points out that the big advantage that stronger players have in the endgame is not their ability to calculate much longer variations much quicker (generally speaking they don't have this!) but their ability to quickly and correctly evaluate candidate positions that they are aiming for. They are not high speed calculators. They are very good evaluators who don't waste time calculating mini plans which they know in advance are not going to work, so saving time and making it look like they are high speed calculators!

---
Tags: endgame
---


title: Chess Tutorials for Beginners

text:
# Question
Title: Chess Tutorials for Beginners
I am a chess beginner but I have been playing the game for many years without being very serious about it. I would like to improve a bit now though but I am having difficulty with many of the sites....I like the sites that provide problems to be solved but the main issue I have with them is when you make a wrong move it says...wrong move!! I would like it to be a bit more specific than that and tell me why it was a wrong move as sometimes it looks like the right move to me!!! (That's why I'm still a beginner of course....) But I think it would be extremely helpful to know this. Is there any sites out there that provide that sort of service?

# Answer
> 2 votes
It's hard to find resources like that. Beyond the basics or how to move, you can look at

Beginner Study Plan \- I'd recommend having a look at this guide so you know what to study. Then I would advise you look at Yasser Seirawan's Winning Chess Series. For beginners, look at

1. Play Winning Chess

Then when you progress, you can look at

2. Winning Chess Tactics

and later you can look at

3. Winning Chess Endgames
4. Winning Chess Openings

These books are easy to read and provide lots of examples with very clear explanations from one of the best chess authors out there.

You should definitely learn all the tactical motifs that exist. By knowing what they are, you can try to find them in real games, and over time they will start to become second nature. I recommend Attacking Chess by Josh Waitzkin, which is a really good book for beginners learning tactical puzzles. You can probably find a PDF of the book online if you want, but I'd advise buying it.

Tactical Motifs \- This website has tens of thousands of tactical puzzles and will show you the solution if you get the puzzle wrong. Each puzzle has a tag which lets you know what tactical motif was used. For a beginner, you should know forks, pins, skewers, double check, back-rank mate and x-rays. There are plenty more tactical ideas, but these will help most.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I read your question as asking for sites, and I don't know any. But I do have a book recommendation. I started playing chess in the 1960s and had many books, but it was only when I found "Winning Chess: How To See Three Moves Ahead by Chernev and Reinfeld" that I really thought my middle-game tactics improved. It's old, but truly excellent. The contrast to many other books is profound. They actually did a study of tactics, and focus on the most important ones in order. Pins, forks, double attacks, skewers, discovered check and a number of others. Highly recommended.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I'm in a somewhat similar situation and have found a few excellent resources. Mainly, I am in a club, in which the teachers/higher-level players can be quite useful for suggestion. However, if such is not an option, I have heard from other players that apps can be a useful resource. If you have an app with a AI that can consistently beat you, I would recommend copying down the situation and putting it in the game later, but with roles swapped. I've personally tried this with a basic engine and have had good success. For a free such engine, I would recommend https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/2737104/ for a lower level player, which has the disadvantage of not easily setting up games.

---
Tags: learning, beginner, training
---


# Question
Title: I am looking for a chess game on nintendo ds that is suitable for beginners
I am not a experienced player, just a beginner, I want a easier computer opponent that I can beat.

Through search engin I found below two game titles that emphasize the suitability for beginner, which is"chessmaster the art of learning" and "learn chess". Of these two games which one is better for a beginner? Or does any one has other recommendation?

# Answer
> 3 votes
I had a look at the various options a long time ago, and the two I would suggest would be Chessmaster and Fritz DS. Both of these allow you to set the strength of the opponent and don't distract you with "fun" graphics jumping all over the screen. If you don't have the means to test them out and just want a purchase recommendation, I found Chessmaster to be a more complete package.

However, both of these share the problem that is present in **all** chess programs, which is that at a lower strength level they play in a very un-human-like manner. They'll occasionally make really good moves and occasionally make terrible ones, only the scale is tipped towards the latter as you set the rating lower and lower. As a result, if you are planning to use this as a way of learning the game to play against other humans be away that a real person will play **very** differently.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There is a Chessmaster DS game from 2000 ish. Very aimed at beginners like yourself and offer good tutorials. (DS game by Josh Watzkin)

---
Tags: software, beginner
---


title: Chess Software for analysis and notes

text:
# Question
Title: Chess Software for analysis and notes
I am looking for software that has chess engine analysis but also allows me to take notes and save games. I have used Scid in the past for this and liked it, but I just want to see if there is something better out there.

# Answer
The old Fritz 5.32 (last free version) does this. Of course it is not as powerful as the latest version (big understatement). It is available here http://freechess.50webs.com/fritz.html but note that it will need some work (described on the website) to get it to run on modern versions of Windows.

I alternate between Fritz 8, which is not quite as old as the free version and runs on modern operating systems, and Scid vs PC which is a much more modern fork of Scid and could also be worth trying especially if you are still stuck on original Scid.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Chessbase is top of the line, but there are a lot of alternatives: Hiarcs Chess Explorer, the Shredder GUIs, Aquarium, Chess Assistant and Chesspartner.

Arena is free, but has a few of the menu items in German, and is perhaps more for playing engines than analysis. Other free ones are Chesspad, Kvetka, Penguin and Tarrasch.

SCID is pretty good for a free program, but the commercial ones have a lot of interesting features.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I prefer list form, so allow a decent list that I came up with:

* CBO or ChessBase
* Fritz
* Houdini
* Komodo

are my top four picks. Although this really isn't an answer, it was too long for a comment so I posted it here.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, software, annotation
---


# Question
Title: Why shouldn't the black king move to h7?
If white plays ne6+, why shouldn't black play kh7?

# Answer
1...Kh7 leads to 2. Qxh6+! Kxh6 3. Rh3+ with mate in 2. If 2...Kg8, Black is mated with 3. Qxg6 Kh8 4. Rh1 with mate in 2.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: puzzles
---


# Question
Title: What is the best way to maintain an opening repertoire in electronic form?
I am torn between two options:

a) having a database with separate games (e.g. in pgn files, or any one of ChessBase, Chess Assistant or SCID database format), where each game would be a subvariation of an opening that I play. This has an advantage for adding verbal annotations, easier printing, etc. This seems also what most professional players, or opening book writers do.

b) A proper opening book in CTG, bin, or whatever other custom opening book format. Possibly one book for my white openings, and one for my Black reperoire. This is better for transpositions, but does not allow me to add verbal annotations - at least not in the formats that I looked at. Chess Position Trainer seems like a good tool for this approach, but still does not let me include variations from database games, so you really can't use it effectively to build a repertoire.

Neither option seems ideal. Any advice?

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is no one answer to this question, because what is 'best' in this case is subjective. It also depends on how you play chess (online/IRL, OTB/Correspondence) and what you want to get out of the record (Professional games using line X, or just a list of what moves you want to play).

If you just want a list of what lines you want to play, then you could even just use something like this in your text editor of choice:

```
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5  a6 4.Ba4
  ........... Nf6 3.Nxe5
  .. c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4

```

However, if you want a visual list or references to Master games using each line, then Other solutions would be more appropriate.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There are a couple of angles that haven't been mentioned. Chessbase's keys allows you to add comments to individual moves, and easily sort new games into the appropriate key by adding them to the archive. A key serves as a handy index to the complete games, and also gives you the option of generating statistics for any leaf in the key.

Bookup/Chess Openings Wizard stores lines in a tree, and can test you on your knowledge by feeding you random positions from your repertoire to see if you know the next move. It can also backsolve, telling you which lines are good or bad based on the evaluation of the line with best play for both sides.

I think the reason that some players store their repertoire as sets of games with one line per game is so they can test themselves on how well they know it using the testing features of Chessbase, SCID, iChess, etc.

Opening books (CTG) allow you to specify the moves an engine plays, so you can train by playing test games. This is also the format that lets you see the statistics most readily. In Chessbase, you can add games to a CTG, but have to specify how deep you want to go since it takes a lot of time to add full games to a book.

An opening key is probably preferable if you just want to index all the games that have been played in a certain line.

---
Tags: opening, software
---