title: How to play against the Polish opening?

text:
# Question
Title: How to play against the Polish opening?
`1. b4` It seems like that black can some how equalize. Despite this, I somehow get tricked and lose my games against this opening.

# Answer
> 15 votes
I have played against this opening a lot, sometimes in bullet sometimes in blitz games, and even in casual ones without the clock. some of the opponents were strong candidate masters and sometimes a FIDE master would use it.

The easiest defense for me is `1...e5` and on `2.Bb2` to simply take on `b4`. This has several benefits:

* White is behind in development ( plays twice with the bishop );
* Black hinders White's fight for the center by keeping bishop on `a5-e1` diagonal. This is very effective method that simply squelches any initiative White has. He may be equal in the resulting *tabya* but that is all he gets, and frankly, I believe Black has an easier game;
* Black gets half-open `e-file` which is very useful, since he will play `...d5` and `...Re8` at some point, so he can count on `...d4` push to generate initiative;
* Being behind in development and restrained in center, White can't really use `b-file`;
* Since Black has development advantage, the opening of the game benefits him ( `...d4` push mentioned above is useful for this );
* All of the Black pieces can acquire **best** squares ( knights on `c6` and `f6`, bishops on `b4` and `g4` );
* **Black has no pawn weaknesses, nor weak pieces, while White has weak pawn at `a2`;**

That is why I would advise you the above approach when battling the Sokolsky attack ( known also as Polish opening or Orangutan ). I have looked into *Fritz* opening database and found the lines I think give good game for Black in the easiest way ( I have added multiple hoices for Black so you can have a wider choice ). I am going to present them in the below diagram and will explain typical positions and plans afterwards.

```
[Title "Recommended theory for Sokolsky attack"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 ( 2.a3 d5 3.Bb2 ( 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bb2 Bd6 5.Nf3 ( 5.c4 c6 6.Nf3 Qe7 7.Nc3 a6 ) 5...Qe7 6.c4 c6 7.Nc3 a6 ) 3...Bd6 4.e3 ( 4.Nf3 Qe7 5.e3 Nf6 6.c4 c6 7.Nc3 a6 ) ( 4.f4 exf4 5.Bxg7 Qh4+ 6.g3 fxg3 7.Bg2 gxh2+ 8.Kf1 Nf6 9.Nf3 ( 9.Bxh8 Ne4 10.Bxe4 dxe4 ) 9...Qg3 10.Bxf6 ( 10.Bxh8 Bh3 ) 10...Rg8 11.Rxh2 Qg6 12.Be5 Bxe5 13.Nxe5 Qf6+ 14.Kg1 Qxe5 ) 4...Nf6 5.Nf3 ( 5.c4 c6 6.Nf3 Qe7 7.Nc3 a6 ) 5...Qe7 6.c4 c6 7.Nc3 a6 ) ( 2.b5 d5 3.Bb2 Bd6 4.e3 ( 4.Nf3 Qe7 ) ( 4.f4 exf4 5.Bxg7 Qh4+ 6.g3 fxg3 7.Bg2 gxh2+ 8.Kf1 Nf6 9.Nf3 ( 9.Bxh8 Ne4 10.Bxe4 dxe4 ) 9...Qg3 10.Bxf6 ( 10.Bxh8 Bh3 ) 10...Rg8 11.Rxh2 Qg6 12.Be5 Bxe5 13.Nxe5 Qf6+ 14.Kg1 Qxe5 ) 4...Nf6 ) 2...Bxb4 3.Bxe5 Nf6 4.c4 ( 4.c3 Be7 ) ( 4.Nf3 O-O 5.e3 d5 ) 4...O-O 5.Nf3 ( 5.e3 d5 6.cxd5 ( 6.Nf3 c5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Be2 Nc6 9.Bb2 Bf5 ) ( 6.Qb3 c5 7.a3 Ba5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bc4 Nb6 10.Be2 Nc6 11.Bb2 Be6 ) ( 6.a3 Ba5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 ) 6...Nxd5 7.Nf3 Re8 ( 7...Be7 8.a3 c5 9.Be2 Nc6 10.Bb2 b6 11.O-O Bb7 ) 8.Bb2 ( 8.Be2 Rxe5 9.Nxe5 Qf6 10.f4 Nxe3 11.Qb3 Nxg2+ 12.Kd1 Nxf4 13.Nxf7 Qxf7 14.Bc4 Be6 15.Bxe6 Nxe6 ) 8...Be7 ) 5...Nc6 6. Bb2 d5 7. cxd5 Nxd5

```

OK, now you have thorough coverage of your repertoire with Black. I have tried to keep the number of lines to minimum, but **all** relevant White replies had to be covered. It is time to explain the ideas and plans in each separate position for Black:

```
[Title "White takes pawn at e5, Black takes pawn on b4"]
[fen "r1bq1rk1/ppp2ppp/2n5/3n4/1b6/5N2/PB1PPPPP/RN1QKB1R w KQ - 0 8"]

```

In the above position Black has no weak pieces, he is not cramped and has development advantage. White on the other hand does have central pawn majority but he can't utilize it to gain initiative. The best he can do is `e3` so he can safely finish development. Notice the tremendous pressure `Bb4`\+ `Nd5` exert on the White position by pressuring the dark squares ( `c3` and the entire `a5-e1` diagonal! ). **This is the key idea of Black's defense in this, and similar positions -\> to control `a5-e1` diagonal and the dark squares.** Black is more than fine here and simply playing natural moves should give you satisfactory position. It is White who fights for equality here.

```
[Title "Tremendous exchange sacrifice for Black"]
[fen "rn4k1/ppp2qpp/4n3/8/1b6/1Q6/P2P3P/RN1K3R w - - 0 16"]

```

This is one of the variations from the above diagram that is most complex but is easy to play with Black. Black has sacrificed the rook for a knight, bishop, two pawns and exposed White king. The compensation is more than enough and Black has a winning position in my opinion. Just develop `Nb8` and do not be afraid of `d4`, threatening to fork the knights with `d5`, because you have `...Rd8!` which pins the pawn and gives decisive initiative. White can't survive because of his exposed king and lag in development. Again, you are fine.

```
[Title "White plays the weak f4 attack"]
[fen ""]

1.b4 e5 2.a3 d5 3.Bb2 Bd6 4.f4 exf4 5.Bxg7 Qh4+ 6.g3 fxg3 7.Bg2 gxh2+ 8.Kf1 Nf6 9.Nf3 ( 9.Bxh8 Ne4 10.Bxe4 dxe4-+ ) 9...Qg3 10.Bxf6 ( 10.Bxh8 Bh3-+ 11.Rxh2 $8 Ng4 ) 10...Rg8 11.Rxh2 Qg6 12.Be5 Bxe5 13.Nxe5 Qf6+ 14.Kg1 Qxe5

```

The whole point of `f4` lines is to accept the pawn, gambit the rook on `h8` and smash White in the coming attack. These lines can be tricky so you could additionally analyze them with an engine, just to see how exactly can you capitalize on your advantage the easiest. Again, nothing to worry here, Black has a winning attack.

```
[Title "White doesn't take the Black's pawn at e5"]
[fen "rnb1k2r/1p2qppp/p1pb1n2/3pp3/1PP5/P1N1PN2/1B1P1PPP/R2QKB1R w KQ - 0 14"]

```

Here, White is smart and doesn't wish to make early trouble. He will finish development first, and then will try to capitalize on his queenside space advantage. The most typical plan in similar pawn structures is *minority attack*. That is why Black played `...a6` at some point, to hinder this plan.

Black will maintain his advantage in center, and will refute any type of wing play White bases. Remember the golden rules:

* Attack in the center refutes the wing attack;
* Who controls the center, controls the wings too;

I would recommend you to study Orthodox defense of the QGD, and the Exchange variation of the QGD as positional transformations of the above position will have very similar plans like in the mentioned lines. *M.Sadler-Queen's Gambit Declined ( 2000 )* is dated but excellent starting point. The book is clearly written and explains all the plans that might crop up here. You might need to learn about Isolated Queen's Pawn, and my answer to this question might be helpful as a starting point. For further reading I highly recommend *A.Soltis-Pawn Structure Chess ( 1995 )* as it is simply awesome.

If you have further questions leave me a comment. Hopefully this helps.

# Answer
> 4 votes
1.b4 is also known as the Sokolsky opening,and Sokolsky wrote a good book on it. It used to be thought that ..e5,2.Bb2 Bxb4 was the line that Black should NOT play, because it gave up the center. I used to play 1.b4 then, and got good results. I stopped (except for occasional outings) when it became generally known that ..e5 etc was a good line. Maybe you should play that, but it isn't quite as easy as people are saying. You have given up the center for piece activity, and you need to make energetic use of those pieces. If that does not appeal, then try a reversed Kings Indian Attack. (..e5,d6,Nf6,g6,Bg7)

The 1..c6 line is very interesting, but nothing for White to be afraid of after 2.c4!, eg 2..Qb6 3.Qb3!

# Answer
> 1 votes
a good line for black is 1b4 c6 2Bb2 Qb6 3a3 a5 4c3 and from their it should be better for black.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I usually answer 1... c6 which is a pretty good option if White continues with 2.Bb2. then game might continue with 2... a5 3.a3 axb4 4.axb4 Rxa1 5.Rxa1 Qb6 and now White has to make a choice how to defend the b4-pawn. I think that his best option is to give this pawn immediately with something like b5 or e3.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In the 1.b4 e5 line, Stockfish reaches some 30-40 centipawns advantage for black, so this could hardly be an opening to recommend, bearing in mind that it is **white** who should have the edge in the opening. If you want a quiet refutation, then just play 1...g6 and then fianchetto your king side bishop.

# Answer
> 1 votes
While I play Polish Opening, the same had happened to me as well,

> I somehow get tricked and lose my games against this opening.

I don't know why most of them in chess.com opens either King's pawn or Queen's pawn always.

But here my opponent was more cautious maybe that made me pity, however I won the game as he lost his time.

> To say, its look like fair most good variation considering Polish Defense,- "Polish Opening Outflank Variation"

Here is the game `fen` for look upon, so you could see one way of developing principle for `Polish Opening Outflank Variation`,- `1.b4 c6`

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2017.12.02"]
[White "bram-stokers"]
[Black "KocouJo"]
[WhiteElo "954"]
[BlackElo "920"]
[TimeControl "600"]
[Termination "game_result.won_on_time"]
[Result "1-0"]
[CurrentPosition "3B1b1r/1Q2pk1p/p4p2/1p4p1/4P2q/5KR1/P1r5/8 b - - 7 37"]

1.b4 c6 2.g4 d5 3.e3 g5 4.Bb2 f6 5.Nf3 Bxg4 6.Rg1 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 Qd6 8.c3 Qxh2 9.Rg2 Qh1 10.Qg4 Nd7 11.d3 Nh6 12.Qg3 Ne5 13.Ke2 Qh5+ 14.Kd2 Nf3+ 15.Kc1 Nf5 16.Qc7 Nd6 17.Nd2 Rc8 18.Qa5 Nb5 19.Rg3 Nxd2 20.Kxd2 a6 21.Qb6 Rc7 22.c4 dxc4 23.dxc4 Qh4 24.cxb5 Qxb4+ 25.Bc3 Qd6+ 26.Ke2 cxb5 27.Ba5 Rc2+ 28.Kf3 Qd5+ 29.e4 Qe5 (30.Rd1) 30.Qxb7 Qxa1 31.Qb8+ Kf7 32.Bd8 Qxf1 33.Qb7 Qxf2+ 34.Kg4 Qe2+ 35.Kh3 Qh2+ 36.Kg4 Qh4+ 37.Kf3  1-0

```

Here is another Game, at the end of game due to Time Constraint and some complexity opponent got detracted a bit.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2018.02.01"]
[White "bram-stokers"]
[Black "Jed_NZ"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A00"]
[WhiteElo "973"]
[BlackElo "986"]
[TimeControl "600"]
[EndTime "4:13:25 PST"]
[Termination "bram-stokers won on time"]
[CurrentPosition "8/3R2kp/3PQ1p1/1p3p2/4pP1P/8/7P/1K6 b - - 0 38"]

1.b4 {[%clk 0:09:47]} e5 {[%clk 0:09:57]} 2.c3 {[%clk 0:09:39]} d5 {[%clk 0:09:53]} 3.d4 {[%clk 0:09:19]} e4 {[%clk 0:09:43]} 4.e3 {[%clk 0:09:13]} Nf6 {[%clk 0:09:37]} 5.Na3 {[%clk 0:09:05]} Bg4 {[%clk 0:09:34]} 6.Qb3 {[%clk 0:08:56]} a6 {[%clk 0:09:26]} 7.Nh3 {[%clk 0:08:41]} Bxh3 {[%clk 0:09:21]} 8.gxh3 {[%clk 0:08:36]} a5 {[%clk 0:08:53]} 9.Bd2 {[%clk 0:08:27]} axb4 {[%clk 0:08:44]} 10.cxb4 {[%clk 0:08:23]} Nc6 {[%clk 0:08:33]} 11.b5 {[%clk 0:08:17]} Nxd4 {[%clk 0:08:20]} 12.exd4 {[%clk 0:08:10]} Bxa3 {[%clk 0:08:01]} 13.Bb4 {[%clk 0:07:56]} Bxb4+ {[%clk 0:07:44]} 14.Qxb4 {[%clk 0:07:54]} b6 {[%clk 0:07:32]} 15.a4 {[%clk 0:07:44]} Nd7 {[%clk 0:06:52]} 16.O-O-O {[%clk 0:07:35]} Nb8 {[%clk 0:06:34]} 17.Be2 {[%clk 0:07:29]} c6 {[%clk 0:06:29]} 18.Rhg1 {[%clk 0:07:16]} g6 {[%clk 0:06:05]} 19.Rg5 {[%clk 0:07:04]} Qc7 {[%clk 0:05:52]} 20.Re5+ {[%clk 0:06:58]} Kd8 {[%clk 0:05:45]} 21.Bg4 {[%clk 0:06:48]} cxb5+ {[%clk 0:05:41]} 22.Kb1 {[%clk 0:06:33]} Rxa4 {[%clk 0:05:15]} 23.Rxd5+ {[%clk 0:06:29]} Ke8 {[%clk 0:04:57]} 24.Qxb5+ {[%clk 0:06:26]} Qc6 {[%clk 0:04:30]} 25.Bd7+ {[%clk 0:05:53]} Qxd7 {[%clk 0:03:13]} 26.Rxd7 {[%clk 0:05:46]} Nxd7 {[%clk 0:02:44]} 27.Qxa4 {[%clk 0:05:42]} Ke7 {[%clk 0:02:35]} 28.Re1 {[%clk 0:05:36]} f5 {[%clk 0:02:29]} 29.Qb4+ {[%clk 0:05:30]} Kf7 {[%clk 0:02:20]} 30.d5 {[%clk 0:05:22]} Ra8 {[%clk 0:01:43]} 31.f4 {[%clk 0:05:14]} Ra6 {[%clk 0:01:29]} 32.Qd6 {[%clk 0:05:07]} Ra7 {[%clk 0:00:47]} 33.Qe6+ {[%clk 0:05:00]} Kg7 {[%clk 0:00:45]} 34.d6 {[%clk 0:04:57]} b5 {[%clk 0:00:35]} 35.Rc1 {[%clk 0:04:52]} Nf6 {[%clk 0:00:06]} 36.h4 {[%clk 0:04:34]} Rc7 {[%clk 0:00:02]} 37.Rxc7+ {[%clk 0:04:27]} Nd7 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 38.Rxd7+ {[%clk 0:04:24]}  1-0

```

Here is one another `Blitz Game` of 5 minutes time control per side, in which more inaccuracies or blunders can be denoted.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Rated Blitz game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/IkU6jNFS"]
[Date "2018.02.18"]
[Round "-"]
[White "BramStokers"]
[Black "timjim77"]
[Result "0-1"]
[UTCDate "2018.02.18"]
[UTCTime "00:34:55"]
[WhiteElo "1500"]
[BlackElo "1470"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "-191"]
[BlackRatingDiff "+8"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "300+0"]
[ECO "A00"]
[Opening "Polish Opening"]
[Termination "Normal"]

1. b4 { [%eval -0.09] [%clk 0:05:00] } 1... e5 { [%eval -0.09] [%clk 0:05:00] } 2. c3 { [%eval -0.7] [%clk 0:04:56] } 2... d5 { [%eval -0.7] [%clk 0:04:57] } 3. Na3 { [%eval -1.41] [%clk 0:04:49] } 3... Nf6 { [%eval -1.41] [%clk 0:04:52] } 4. e3 { [%eval -1.37] [%clk 0:04:43] } 4... Bd6 { [%eval -1.4] [%clk 0:04:49] } 5. g4 { [%eval -3.09] [%clk 0:04:41] } 5... Bxg4 { [%eval -3.07] [%clk 0:04:45] } 6. f3 { [%eval -3.37] [%clk 0:04:35] } 6... Bh5 { [%eval -3.39] [%clk 0:04:42] } 7. Qe2 { [%eval -3.87] [%clk 0:04:28] } 7... e4 { [%eval -2.82] [%clk 0:04:40] } 8. Bb2 { [%eval -3.5] [%clk 0:04:20] } 8... exf3 { [%eval -2.32] [%clk 0:04:38] } 9. Nxf3 { [%eval -2.57] [%clk 0:04:18] } 9... O-O { [%eval -2.28] [%clk 0:04:32] } 10. O-O-O { [%eval -2.84] [%clk 0:04:16] } 10... Re8 { [%eval -2.64] [%clk 0:04:28] } 11. Bh3 { [%eval -3.2] [%clk 0:04:10] } 11... Nbd7 { [%eval -3.24] [%clk 0:04:16] } 12. Rhg1 { [%eval -3.0] [%clk 0:04:07] } 12... Ne5 { [%eval -2.81] [%clk 0:04:14] } 13. Qg2 { [%eval -3.26] [%clk 0:03:56] } 13... Ng6 { [%eval -1.85] [%clk 0:04:02] } 14. Nh4 { [%eval -4.31] [%clk 0:03:47] } 14... Ne4 { [%eval -2.77] [%clk 0:03:45] } 15. Rdf1 { [%eval -6.09] [%clk 0:03:38] } 15... Qxh4 { [%eval -5.67] [%clk 0:03:43] } 16. Rf4 { [%eval -11.49] [%clk 0:03:21] } 16... Bxf4 { [%eval -11.0] [%clk 0:03:31] } 17. exf4 { [%eval -12.4] [%clk 0:03:18] } 17... Qxf4 { [%eval -10.77] [%clk 0:03:25] } 18. Rf1 { [%eval -10.67] [%clk 0:03:10] } 18... Qxd2+ { [%eval -7.6] [%clk 0:03:08] } 19. Kb1 { [%eval -16.45] [%clk 0:03:05] } 19... Qxg2 { [%eval -16.38] [%clk 0:03:02] } 20. Bxg2 { [%eval -16.16] [%clk 0:03:01] } 20... Nd2+ { [%eval -15.89] [%clk 0:02:59] } 21. Kc2 { [%eval -15.88] [%clk 0:02:56] } 21... Nxf1 { [%eval -15.4] [%clk 0:02:59] } 22. Bxf1 { [%eval -15.32] [%clk 0:02:55] } 22... Ne5 { [%eval -11.32] [%clk 0:02:55] } 23. Kd2 { [%eval -16.17] [%clk 0:02:52] } 23... Nc4+ { [%eval -14.29] [%clk 0:02:54] } 24. Kc1 { [%eval -58.6] [%clk 0:02:46] } 24... Nxb2 { [%eval -13.51] [%clk 0:02:52] } 25. Kxb2 { [%eval -13.0] [%clk 0:02:45] } 25... a5 { [%eval -12.11] [%clk 0:02:48] } 26. b5 { [%eval -13.37] [%clk 0:02:43] } 26... a4 { [%eval -11.95] [%clk 0:02:46] } 27. h4 { [%eval -15.41] [%clk 0:02:36] } 27... Re1 { [%eval -15.39] [%clk 0:02:43] } 28. Bd3 { [%eval -14.78] [%clk 0:02:30] } 28... Bg6 { [%eval -13.52] [%clk 0:02:41] } 29. Bc2 { [%eval -15.4] [%clk 0:02:25] } 29... Re2 { [%eval -13.7] [%clk 0:02:39] } 30. Kc1 { [%eval -24.76] [%clk 0:02:04] } 30... Bxc2 { [%eval -16.9] [%clk 0:02:36] } 31. Nxc2 { [%eval -15.13] [%clk 0:02:02] } 31... c5 { [%eval -13.62] [%clk 0:02:30] } 32. b6 { [%eval #-13] [%clk 0:01:59] } 32... d4 { [%eval #-13] [%clk 0:02:27] } 33. cxd4 { [%eval #-14] [%clk 0:01:57] } 33... cxd4 { [%eval -59.7] [%clk 0:02:27] } 34. Nxd4 { [%eval #-9] [%clk 0:01:55] } 34... Rxa2 { [%eval #-11] [%clk 0:02:26] } 35. Nb5 { [%eval #-7] [%clk 0:01:53] } 35... Rc8+ { [%eval #-6] [%clk 0:02:21] } 36. Kb1 { [%eval #-5] [%clk 0:01:49] } 36... Rac2 { [%eval #-15] [%clk 0:02:17] } 37. Na7 { [%eval #-6] [%clk 0:01:46] } 37... Rc1+ { [%eval #-7] [%clk 0:02:14] } 38. Kb2 { [%eval #-7] [%clk 0:01:44] } 38... R8c2+ { [%eval #-6] [%clk 0:02:12] } 39. Ka3 { [%eval #-6] [%clk 0:01:43] } 39... Rc4 { [%eval #-7] [%clk 0:02:09] } 40. Nb5 { [%eval #-6] [%clk 0:01:37] } 40... h5 { [%eval #-7] [%clk 0:02:04] } 41. Nd6 { [%eval #-7] [%clk 0:01:34] } 41... Rxh4 { [%eval -67.33] [%clk 0:02:01] } 42. Nxb7 { [%eval #-4] [%clk 0:01:32] } 42... Rc3+ { [%eval #-3] [%clk 0:01:58] } 43. Kb2 { [%eval #-3] [%clk 0:01:28] } 43... Rb3+ { [%eval #-4] [%clk 0:01:57] } 44. Ka2 { [%eval #-3] [%clk 0:01:24] } 44... Rh2+ { [%eval #-2] [%clk 0:01:55] } 45. Ka1 { [%eval #-2] [%clk 0:01:18] } 45... Ra3+ { [%eval #-2] [%clk 0:01:54] } 46. Kb1 { [%eval #-2] [%clk 0:01:09] } 46... Rb3+ { [%eval #-2] [%clk 0:01:53] } 47. Kc1 { [%eval #-2] [%clk 0:01:06] } 47... a3 { [%eval #-3] [%clk 0:01:51] } 48. Nc5 { [%eval #-3] [%clk 0:00:59] } 48... Rc3+ { [%eval #-3] [%clk 0:01:49] } 49. Kd1 { [%eval #-3] [%clk 0:00:55] } 49... a2 { [%eval #-2] [%clk 0:01:47] } 50. b7 { [%eval #-1] [%clk 0:00:53] } 50... a1=Q# { [%clk 0:01:45] } 0-1

```

Please find another game in which end game been made bit convoluted.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2017.11.11"]
[White "bram-stokers"]
[Black "dillondownes"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A00"]
[WhiteElo "936"]
[BlackElo "884"]
[TimeControl "600"]
[EndTime "13:53:47 PST"]
[Termination "bram-stokers won by checkmate"]
[CurrentPosition "R1kr4/1pp1r2p/6p1/1P2N1P1/1b2P2P/1P2B3/4K3/8 b - - 3 27"]

1.b4 {[%clk 0:09:52]} d5 {[%clk 0:09:55]} 2.h4 {[%clk 0:09:40]} Nf6 {[%clk 0:09:52]} 3.f3 {[%clk 0:09:36]} Nc6 {[%clk 0:09:49]} 4.a3 {[%clk 0:09:28]} e6 {[%clk 0:09:47]} 5.d4 {[%clk 0:09:23]} g6 {[%clk 0:09:39]} 6.Nc3 {[%clk 0:09:20]} Bg7 {[%clk 0:09:37]} 7.g4 {[%clk 0:09:10]} e5 {[%clk 0:09:29]} 8.g5 {[%clk 0:09:04]} Nd7 {[%clk 0:09:25]} 9.dxe5 {[%clk 0:08:56]} Ndxe5 {[%clk 0:09:16]} 10.Rb1 {[%clk 0:08:38]} d4 {[%clk 0:08:59]} 11.Ne4 {[%clk 0:08:31]} Bf5 {[%clk 0:08:53]} 12.e3 {[%clk 0:08:14]} Bxe4 {[%clk 0:08:46]} 13.fxe4 {[%clk 0:08:11]} dxe3 {[%clk 0:08:43]} 14.Bxe3 {[%clk 0:08:08]} Qxd1+ {[%clk 0:08:37]} 15.Kxd1 {[%clk 0:08:06]} Nc4 {[%clk 0:08:25]} 16.Rb3 {[%clk 0:07:53]} Nd4 {[%clk 0:08:03]} 17.Bxc4 {[%clk 0:07:46]} Nxb3 {[%clk 0:08:00]} 18.cxb3 {[%clk 0:07:41]} O-O-O+ {[%clk 0:07:45]} 19.Ke2 {[%clk 0:07:35]} Bb2 {[%clk 0:07:33]} 20.a4 {[%clk 0:07:28]} a6 {[%clk 0:07:23]} 21.Bxf7 {[%clk 0:07:22]} Ba3 {[%clk 0:07:17]} 22.b5 {[%clk 0:07:14]} axb5 {[%clk 0:07:14]} 23.axb5 {[%clk 0:07:09]} Bb4 {[%clk 0:07:11]} 24.Nf3 {[%clk 0:07:06]} Rhf8 {[%clk 0:07:07]} 25.Ra1 {[%clk 0:06:59]} Rxf7 {[%clk 0:07:02]} 26.Ne5 {[%clk 0:06:55]} Re7 {[%clk 0:06:35]} 27.Ra8# {[%clk 0:06:51]}  1-0

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
Could you be more precise please? Give us some lines in which you have difficulties. Polish defense is rather bad opening, imho can work only as some kind of surprise weapon against not too experienced players.

Until you are more precise with exact variations my advice is super-simple and general:

* maintain strong center with `e4` and `d4`. `f3` is usually good since in polish defense there's a Bishop on b7
* develop your pieces to active squares
* Be careful with `Nc3` since it might be met with `b4` in some variations (I don't say it's bad move, just be careful)

# edit

I just noticed I made a mistake with opening names.

Well, `1. b4` is not a bad move. It's kind of English (`1. c4`) in many cases. You can't exploit it and get adventage. White color is white color. One tricky variation I 'fell into' is: `1. b4 - d5 2. Bb2 - c6 3. e3 - a5 4. a3 - Qb6 5. c4`. At first I thought I busted oponent, but it's nothing. About equals there.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Here is a main line for White. White aims to have a central majority at the cost of losing the initiative.

1. b4 e5 2. Bb2 Bxb4 5. Bxe5 Nf6 Black's plan is to aim for quick development and an attack, while White's is to ensure a safe position and put his central pawns into use. Black has a small advantage, but must put the attack into action immediately or the initiative will be lost.

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Transposition Tables

text:
# Question
Title: Transposition Tables
> **Are transposition tables (in engines) used for one or multiple games?**

My current knowledge of transposition tables is that when an engine searches the game tree, there will sometimes be positions that have already been calculated earlier. A transposition table allows an engine to take what it already had calculated earlier and use it for even deeper search.

What I don't understand is whether transposition tables store positions permanently (such that an engine can use what it previously calculated in previous games for new games) or if it's strictly game-specific as in that a new game corresponds with a completely empty and new transposition table.

# Answer
When you shut off the engine and turn it back on, its transposition table has been cleared. In order to continue using the saved positions, a database of some sort would be needed. This would keep getting bigger and bigger the more you used the engine though, and could become very inefficient for the engine to actually use to the sheer size.

If by a new game you mean going back to the starting position and playing out new moves (all while keeping the engine on), then it probably depends on the engine. Some engines might clear out their transposition table in order to free up space, since the old saved positions happen after a different series of moves. Engines can't keep using more and more RAM, so they have to manage their TTs effectively and get rid of positions that likely won't be useful soon/ever while the engine remains running.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: engines, transpositions
---


title: Mysterious rook move in the Grunfeld

text:
# Question
Title: Mysterious rook move in the Grunfeld
```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. c4 g6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. e4 Nxc3 7. bxc3 c5 8. Be3 Qa5 9. Qd2 Nc6 10. Rb1 a6 11. Rc1

```

In this line of the Grunfeld, White has played 10. Rb1 followed by 11. Rc1. Why? If White wants the rook on c1, why not just play 10. Rc1? What is the benefit of provoking 10...a6 first?

# Answer
> 8 votes
First, and you probably know this, but for other people reading this, I should spell this out: White is playing on the queenside and in the center, and black is trying to chip away at that center to permanently weaken it. Most of the play by white here is very concrete and prophylactic, specifically, trying to prevent black from breaking up the center. A lot of this has been developed over decades of grandmaster play.

Thus, in general, many moves by black on the queenside help white make inroads by giving up squares. For example, a6 and b5 is often met by a4 at some point, tearing the queenside apart for the white pieces where they are much more active. By threatening Rb5, white either forces cxd4 immediately, or the slight weakening of the b6 square. That is significant since the Rf8 often comes to d8, and Bb6 is then a potential threat. Both lines are given below, and the subtle 10.Rc1 gives white a slightly better chance at an advantage. I followed the main lines that were played the most in ChessBase's Mega 2020 database.

Now compare these two main lines with 10.Rc1, and then with almost the same line after 10.Rb1 b6 and then 11.Rc1. I think they will shine light on how forcing that subtle weakness makes a difference in black's options.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. c4 g6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. e4 Nxc3 7. bxc3 c5 8. Be3 Qa5 9. Qd2 Nc6 10. Rb1 {With the threat of Rb5.} (10. Rc1 cxd4 11. cxd4 Qxd2+ 12. Kxd2 O-O 13. d5 Rd8 14. Ke1 Na5 15. Bg5=) 10... a6 (10... cxd4 11. cxd4 O-O 12. Qxa5 Nxa5 13. Bd3 Rd8 14. Ke2 Bg4 15. d5 e6 16. Bg5 f6 17. Bd2 $14) 11. Rc1 cxd4 12. cxd4 Qxd2+ 13. Kxd2 O-O 14. d5 Rd8 15. Ke1 Na5 $4 (15... Nb4? 16. Bd2 $1 a5 (16... Nxa2 17. Rc2 $18) 17. a3 Na6 18. Bxa5 $16) (15... Ne5 16. Nxe5 Bxe5 17. f4 $14 (17. Bb6 $5)) 16. Bb6 $18 {This dramatically shows how the weakening of b6, by means of the subtle 10.Rb1 first, changed black's options.}

```

# Answer
> 10 votes
Peter Svidler explains this in his excellent video series and e-book on the Grünfeld (Premium access only).

The point is the **initiative**. This move discourages black from playing `11...cxd4`, because that would lead to a very uncomfortable situation for black: After `12.cxd4 Qxd2+ 13.Kxd2 O-O 14.d5 Rd8 15.Ke1`, there is no good square for the knight. `15...Na5` is now impossible, because the bishop can go to b6.

And this is the reason why Svidler follows Avrukh's recommendation to play `11...Bg4` in this case.

```
[ECO "D85"]
[Opening "Grünfeld Defense: Exchange Variation"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Be3 c5 8. Nf3 Qa5 9. Qd2 Nc6 10. Rb1 a6 11. Rc1 cxd4 (11... Bg4 { Recommended by Avrukh and Svidler } 12. d5 Rd8) 12. cxd4 Qxd2+ 13. Kxd2 O-O 14. d5 Rd8 15. Ke1 Nb4 (15... Na7 { Best move according to Stockfish. Has never been played. })  (15... Ne5 16. Nxe5 Bxe5 17. f4 Bb2 18. Rc2 Ba3)(15... Na5?? 16. Bb6!) 16. Bd2 a5 17. a3 Na6 *

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
I believe that White was trying to provoke a weakness in the queenside, which happened after ...a6. Then, White could support his c-pawn after this interjection.

---
Tags: grunfeld-defense
---


# Question
Title: Is Anand possibly cheating (the metal detector)?
While I write this question, I am certain I completely miss the spirit of the world championship. But however, I got curious about how well the cheating-countermeasures at the championship actually work.

Before the match, I watched a TV program which explained how the games would be, and they showed us a metal detector that the players had to go through before every match. The purpose of the metal detector was to find devices that could be used for cheating.

In today's match (number 7), I notice that Anand is wearing his wrist watch. I would believe this would trigger the metal detector, and I doubt they would dismantle it to check if it's ok.

Since the metal detector is a countermeasure to cheating, should they let devices such as wristwatches pass?

I seriously doubt that anyone would cheat at this level - I cannot imagine the impact it would have on the game (their career).

# Answer
> 5 votes
The organizers certainly noticed the watch, if you did. Therefore, since it was allowed at the match, they must have determined that it could not aid chess play in any way.

Their reasoning should be simple: either the watch communicates with an outside device in order to signal the player, or else the watch does all chess calculation itself.

Communication with an outside device requires radiation which is easily monitored by a counter-cheating system, and a watch that could *a)* internally calculate chess moves at such a strength as to aid an elite human, *b)* accurately yet undetectably signal the wearer from an analog clockface, and *c)* accurately read the chess board, is currently technologically impossible.

Hence, dismantling the watch is unnecessary until technology allows undetectable wireless communication or a computer of the described caliber becomes even a remote possibility.

# Answer
> 2 votes
It's just a watch.

Obviously it'd be a different story if the watch was a smartwatch, had some type of detailed display(digital) or did anything else but tell the time in an analog fashion. These players are being monitored by camera and by people live for the entire duration of their matches. The odds of getting away with cheating are incredibly small.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't think Anand is cheating at all, but it's an interesting hypothetical.

A more reasonable thing to ask is: how long has Anand been wearing that watch? Many people wear the same accessories for many years if they have significance, so it's even possible that the watch has been used in tournaments long before cheating like this was worthwhile or viable.

Another factor is that Anand has already lost one game and come perilously close to losing a second. While it's not inconcievable that this is just a ruse to make later (illegitimate) wins seem real, you'd have to be pretty dumb to go to all that trouble to cheat *and then lose anyway*.

The final thing to note is that as Peter Svidler noted in the commentary (I think during Game 2?), all wireless radiocommunications signals are being jammed in the venue.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It's just a wristwatch. It isn't a smartwatch, which could have software downloaded on it - an Apple watch is virtually a undersized phone. Anand couldn't be cheating, since the only thing his wristwatch could provide was the time.

---
Tags: world-championship, cheating
---


# Question
Title: What is the Pirc Defense (1... d6 or 1... g6)?
On this website: http://www.dwheeler.com/chess-openings/, it says that the Pirc Defense is `1. e4 d6` or `1. e4 g6`. Which one of them is the true Pirc Defense?

# Answer
`1. e4 g6` could certainly transpose into a Pirc but it is not the first two standard moves. If you look at the ECO entry for B07, B08, B09 you will see the standard variations for the Pirc/Modern. I would say the link you give is wrong.

**ECO B07**

`1. e4 d6`

without `2. d4`

`2. d4` without `2... Nf6`

`2... Nf6` without `3. Nc3`

`3. Nc3` without `3... g6`

`3... g6` without `4. Nf3`, `4. f4`

**B08**

`1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Nf3`

**B09**

`1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4`
> 9 votes

# Answer
The Pirc and the Modern Defense are very closely related.

In the Pirc, black fianchettoes his king's bishop and plays ...Nf6; ...d6 is necessary to prepare ...Nf6, because otherwise white can chase the knight away with e4-e5. There are several setups white can choose, but black's defines the Pirc defence:

```
[fen "rnbqk2r/ppp1ppbp/3p1np1/8/3PP3/2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 2 5"]

```

His move order, 1...d6 and then 2...Nf6, makes sure that white's e4 pawn is attacked and that it can't advance; so white can't play a pawn to c4. That's important.

The Modern is like a Pirc without ...Nf6:

```
[fen "rnbqk1nr/ppp1ppbp/3p2p1/8/3PP3/2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 1 4"]

```

Now obviously, if black plays ...Nf6 here or within a few moves, then it's a Pirc again. But black has other moves as well: start something on the queenside with ...a6 or ...c6, develop the other knight to c6 or d7, or play ...e6 or ...e5 (and ...Ne7 later). But frequently black does end up playing ...Nf6 eventually and then it becomes a Pirc.

In this move order, white can also go for 3.c4:

```
[fen "rnbqk1nr/ppp1ppbp/3p2p1/8/2PPP3/8/PP3PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 4"]

```

Now again, if black doesn't play ...Nf6, then it's still a Modern Defence (one that also often arises after 1.d4 or 1.c4). But if black does play it, then it's not a Pirc, as in the Pirc white can't play c4. It's a *King's Indian Defence* instead! That normally starts 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4, but that's the same thing.

So -- *fianchetto without Nf6 is the Modern*, *fianchetto with Nf6 but without a white pawn on c4 is the Pirc*, *fianchetto with Nf6 and c4 is the King's Indian*.

There are also non-Pirc lines that start 1.e4 d6:

```
[fen "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/2pp1n2/8/3PP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 4"]

```

In the *Czech Defense* (1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6), black doesn't play his bishop to g7.

```
[fen "rnbqkb1r/ppp2ppp/3p1n2/4p3/3PP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 4"]

```

And this (1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5) is a way to get to the *Philidor Defense*, which normally starts 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3, to avoid several options by white, at the cost of allowing 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+, but that's thought to be OK for black.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The normal development of the Pirc Defense is d6, which heads off White 2. e5. You'll have time to play g6 and Bg7 later.

G6 can "get you there" if White plays, say d4, followed by piece development. But it is a "soft," inferior method because it gives White too many options.
> 0 votes

# Answer
The Pirc defence aims to enter a KID setup from the King Pawn's opening. The main line goes

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 Note that White has one more move than in the KID, so the chess game is more fast-paced for White.

The main strategy of the Pirc defence is to use pawn breaks to undermine White's centre.

Note: The Pirc defence has positions that are extremely sharp, so I recommend avoiding it until you reach a FIDE rating of 1500.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, pirc-defense
---


title: King's Indian move order

text:
# Question
Title: King's Indian move order
Isn't 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 (Old Indian Defense) a more flexible move-order than 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 (King's Indian Defense)?

I don't see why any Black player who wants to play the King's Indian would avoid the former move order.

# Answer
It's actually a *less* flexible move order. The bishop will go to g7 in either case, but now black can't go ...d5 in one go. Only play this if you want to put the bishop on e7 (the Old Indian Defense)
> 6 votes

# Answer
Playing 2...d6 allows for the Old Indian Defence and King's Indian Defence, while 2...g6 allows for the Grunfeld and King's Indian Defence. Both have some degree of flexibility, so it depends which openings you are fine with playing.

However, against either 2...d6 or 2...g6, White can play 3.Nc3 (threatening e4). At that point, you would have to choose what opening you're doing to play (so the flexibility ends here). In the 2...d6 3.Nc3 position, 3...e5 leads to the Old Indian and not playing it will lead to a KID (or KID-like structure). In the 2...g6 3.Nc3 position, 3...d5 leads to the Grunfeld and not playing it leads to the KID.

The main reason to use one move order or the other is if you know your opponent doesn't like facing one of the two openings you can deploy. For example, if your opponent likes to go into the Classical King's Indian with Nf3 but detests facing the main line Grunfeld, he might play 3.f3 after 2...g6. Then, you can revert to the KID and your opponent is stuck in the Samisch. Comparatively, if you had played 2...d6, your opponent would go 3.Nc3, 4.e4, 5.Nf3 (since he doesn't fear a Grunfeld happening), reaching a variation of the KID he likes.
> 2 votes

# Answer
If you are certainly not going to play the Grunfeld, then 2...d6 is more flexible. But if you are keeping your choices open, then just play 2...g6
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, 1.d4, old-indian
---


# Question
Title: How should I play against the Grunfeld defense as white?
What is the best defense as white against the Grunfeld Defense?

I have been playing the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit over and over again, I suspect some opponents notice this, and open up with `1... Nf6`, so this gets me off guard. I usually try to continue the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, but black normally goes a different route.

# Answer
First off, `1...Nf6` against `1. d4` is *not* the Gruenfeld Defense: this opening is defined by an order of moves 3 deep. See the Wikipedia page.

In your case after `1. d4 Nf6` simply play `2. Nc3` and you will be well on your way to getting a Blackmar-Diemer, because if Black doesn't play `2...d5` you will play `3. e4` and you will get your pawn to e4 without having to gambit it: almost like an improved Blackmar-Diemer.

But if Black plays `2...d5` in response to `2. Nc3` then `3. e4` *is* the Blackmar-Diemer, after `3...dxe4 4. f3`, just via a different move order (a "transposition"). See Wikipedia's page for the Blackmar-Diemer.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Try this link. This will give you enough search words to find additional information about variations you might explore. Ultimately, you'll have to decide what's best for you. If there were a 'best' move, chances are `1... Nf6` would be a blunder.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Attempt to preserve your big center. In the exchange variation, the center can't advance, but if you play the Russian variation, you can advance your centre because there is less pressure on it. However, in this variation, be careful not to overextend your position.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, grunfeld-defense
---


# Question
Title: Please help me understand the f6 break in the French defense
I'm really struggling to understand this move to be honest. Even after carefully reading a similar question posted here, I still just don't get it and, more importantly, when it's good to play the f6 break. I apologize if that seems stupid.

Can someone explain it in very clear and simple terms for me please? Is it just for making a semi-open file for the rook? Getting rid of white's e pawn? I'm a little unsure about this topic.

# Answer
> 5 votes
The f6 break is a key idea in the French defense, and the point is mainly to add more pressure to White's center. In the French, one basic line of thought is the following:

1. Let White occupy the center
2. Destroy White's center
3. Occupy the center yourself
4. Win the game, as White now will be totally helpless!

If black manages to complete steps 1-3 outlined above, without significant material losses or a serious weakening of the king's position, step 4 will indeed often be possible to accomplish.

Let us examine the move f6 in view of the steps above. If White has a pawn on e5 and black plays ...f6, it's possible to

* a) take on f6
* b) defend the e5 pawn
* c) ignore it

a) If Black hasn't castled, it most likely means that Black will have to respond to this with ...gxf6. Black now typically has pawns on e6 and on f6. It is not hard to see that Black can have plans to push ...e5 in the near future, and if the pawn capture on f6 hasn't left Black's king open to direct attack, it's possible that Black will achieve steps 2-3 outlined above shortly.

If Black has castled, on the other hand, more options than ...gxf6 will be available. Often either a knight, bishop or a rook could also take on f6 in this case. In case of rook capture, Black has a semi-open f-file for his/her rook. Taking with a bishop adds more pressure on the a1-h8 diagonal. Taking with a knight adds possibilities to play ...e5 to free the black bishop on c8 in some cases. It is clear that the ...f6 break by Black has given many possibilities for future plans.

One more note: If White takes the pawn on f6, the h2-b8 diagonal will be ripe for the black bishop to occupy, often coupled with a queen on c7. This is sometimes very unpleasant for White.

b) If White protects the pawn, Black has some other options with ...f6 played. If White has played f4, Black could sometimes take on e5, and if White recaptures with the f-pawn, it can in some cases be possible to play ...Qh4+ for some concrete tactical purpose. Other times Black can be perfectly happy with just trying to take over the f-file and pressure White's position that way. If White recaptures with the d4 pawn instead of the f-pawn, Black has the option to open the diagonal a7-g1 with ...c4, or play ...d4 and just try to break once again in the center, to activate his/her pieces.

If White has played f4, and it's not good for Black to take on e5, Black can wait, and try to maneouver the c8 bishop to g6 via Bc8-d7-e8-g6. This is a standard plan in the French defense to activate that light squared bishop. Or Black can lock the center with ...f5 in some cases, to stop White from attacking the black king. In rare cases, after White has played f4, Black can even try to play ...g5, to again just try to break up White's center. This can be very risky, so it's not often the first idea Black thinks of, but it should never be forgotten, as it can recieve a great pay-off if well executed.

If White guards the e5 pawn with Bf4, the g5 break is more natural, and Black can even try to go for a kingside pawn storm in some cases. Again, it has to be well executed, as it can easily expose Black's king. Otherwise it's more typical for black to keep the tension in the center, and let White make the big decision to alter the status quo. However, at every move, White has to be wary of possible alterations of the center. The same is usually true if White defends e5 with another piece.

c) This option is very rare, and can only be considered if White manages to create an enormous treat elsewhere on the board that black needs to deal with immediately. If this is the case, the ...f6 break may be a bad idea. Otherwise, if White ignores the ...f6 break, Black can usually just take on e5, and normally having a knight on c6 and a queen on c7 (and maybe even a knight on d7 in some cases), this can mean that black simply wins a pawn.

This reply got much longer than I originally had intended it to be, but I feel like most of the reasons why Black may consider playing ...f6 in the French defense are in here. Remember that I have not included any concrete examples here, and that it all depends on the position. If ...f6 is an obvious blunder, for some reason I failed to mention here, it should of course not be played.

TL;DR: ...f6 is about challenging White's control over the center, and trying to open up the position for Black's pieces.

# Answer
> 2 votes
f6 is a thematic idea in positions (such as the advanced French) with locked pawns. The theme is the "**pawn break**".

Pawn breaks are most often done with the c or f pawns because the central d and e pawns are the most likely to become locked after an advance. There are three common motives:

1. **Undermining a pawn chain.** It is preferable to attack the base of a pawn chain which is why Black so often plays c5 in the advanced French. There is no inherent problem with attacking the head of a pawn chain to achieve a similar result.
2. **Opening lines.** This will usually offer an advantage to the player with better development. The f6 move may create a semi-open file for a rook. It also opens Black's 2nd rank so that the Queen, for example, may bolster g7.
3. **Gaining space.** In cramped positions it is usually essential for the player with less space to try to open the position to prevent getting smothered.

So f6 in this context can serve many purposes. In light of options like c5, which has the virtue of not weakening your kingside, it might be worth not rushing into the idea.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It attacks white's pawn centre and cramping e5 pawn and opens up the f6 square if it is taken or opens up the rook's line if black takes on e5.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Often when black does not try to get play in the center and/or kingside, he can get slowly crushed. For example:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. Ne2 Be7 9. O-O cxd4 10. cxd4 Nb4 11. Bb1 O-O 12. a3 Nc6 13. Qc2 g6 14. Bh6 *

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
The ...f6 break can be very useful in advance variations of the French because it saves Black from being completely passive. In playing the French, Black makes a fundamental trade-off of giving White space in exchange for defensive solidity; however, Black needs to counterattack otherwise White will steamroll.

The main feature of White in the Advance is the pawn chain c3, d4, e5. That chain gives White space and freedom of movement. Black's main strategy is to attack the chain and if Black can undermine White' structure, White's position will be fragile. It is definitely not for use in every game, but it can be really handy.

The most essential counterattacking pawn move is ...c5, attacking the pawn chain at d4. This will also give Black some space to develop other pieces. ...f6 should happen a bit later, and lets Black attack the chain at two points (d4 and e5). If White takes, it leaves Black with a structural weakness in the pawn at e6, but Black eliminates a lot of White's early advantage while gaining more piece activity.

In my experience, the ...f6 break has to be timed right and the c8 bishop still needs to be at c8 or d7 to protect the e6 pawn (b/c that bishop usually doesn't do so much in the opening anyway.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The short answer is: it **forces exchange of a center pawn for a non-center pawn**. If White ever captures exf6, Black's gxf6 gets the e pawn for a g pawn, or if Black captures f6 with a piece, gets the e pawn for the f pawn. If White declines exf6 then Black plays fxe5; if White recaptures dxe5 then Black gets a d pawn for the f pawn, or if White recaptures with a piece, the e pawn for the f pawn. In all cases, a slight center advantage toward Black in the pawn exchange.

The force is of course because White cannot push e5 to e6 in the French.

Also, this assumes that White cannot respond to f6 with f4 -- make sure not to play f6 unless White has that N (or other piece) on f3.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Black has two main breaks in the French

1. c7-c5 undermines the d-pawn
2. f7-f6 undermines the e-pawn. Of course, White has advanced the c-pawn, so the pawn that has disappeared is the e-pawn. Black does so to give him an open f-file and a freed position.

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


title: Alphazero vs Stockfish

text:
# Question
Title: Alphazero vs Stockfish
Is the particular ending really a draw?
Someone may try will FinalGen , please?

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "8/1B2k3/p7/P6p/1n1p2pP/6P1/4KP2/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
It's likely a draw. After going through a few lines (which strengthens the transposition table), Stockfish 11 at around depth 42 gave me 0.74 in the starting position. Especially in such a simplified endgame, this shouldn't be enough for White to claim a win. I also set it to White to move in the starting position.

Some variations I analyzed with Stockfish:

a) 1.Kd2 Kd6 2.Be4 Nc6 3.Bg6 Nxa5 4.Bxh5 Nc4+. Depth 38 gives 0.13, a clear draw.

b) 1.f3 gxf3+ 2.Kxf3 (2.Bxf3 Ke6 is 0.13, at depth 42) 2...Kd6 3.Kf4 Nc6: 0.13, depth 40.

c) 1.Be4 is the most challenging. Black should play 1...Kf6, and here White has a few tries:

c1) 2.Kd1 must be met with 2...Ke7!. After 3.Bg6 (3.Kc1 Kd6 4.Bg6 Ke7 5.Bxh5 Nd3+ is drawn: 0.25, depth 42) 3...Nc6 4.Bxh5 Ne5!, Black should hold: 0.38, depth 48. A more challenging move is 3.f3, but after 3...gxf3 4.Bxf3 Ke6 5.Bxh5 Nc6 6.Bg4+ Ke5 7.h5 (7.Bc8 Nxa5 8.Bxa6 Kf5 is theoretically drawn in the 7 piece tablebase) 7...Nxa5 8.h6 Kf6 9.Bh5 Nc4 10.g4 Ne3+ 11.Ke2 Nxg4, Black draws. Note that this 10...Ne3+ is extremely important - if Black couldn't play it with check, then White wins. This is why in variation c2 below, where White plays 2.Ke1 instead of 2.Kd1, 2...Ke7 will end up losing: this 10...Ne3+ resource no longer works.

c2) 2.Ke1 must instead be met with 2...Ke6!. Now 3.f3 can be met with 3...gxf3 4.Bxf3 Nd3+ 5.Kf1 Nc1 6.Bxh5 Nb3, which should be drawn, as Black is about to capture the a5-pawn. The 4...Nd3+ idea works nicely as its with tempo - in variation c1, this wouldn't have been the case as the White king was on d1. Another third move White can try here is 3.Bg6, and after 3...Ke7 4.Bxh5 Nd3+ 5.Ke2 Ne5, Black should draw - Stockfish gives 1.08 at depth 56, which shouldn't be quite enough to win. If White forces matters with 6.f3, then 6...gxf3+ 7.Bxf3 d3+ 8.Ke3 d2 9.Be2 Nc4+ 10.Kd3 Nxa5 11.Kxd2 is drawn in the 7 piece tablebase, as long as Black plays 11...Nc6 here.

c3) 2.f3 gxf3+ 3.Kxf3 Ke5 4.Bb7 Kf5 looks like it should be drawn.

c4) 2.Kd2 Ke7 3.Bg6 Nc6 4.Bxh5 Ne5 should be drawn (1.08, depth 55). Or 3.f3 gxf3 4.Bxf3 Ke6 5.Bxh5 Nc6 6.Bg4+ (6.Be2 Nxa5 7.Bxa6 is drawn in the tablebase) 6...Kf6 7.Bf3 Nxa5 8.h5, and here 8...Nc4+ or 8...Nb3+ both work, bringing the knight over to the centre/kingside with tempo. Yet another 3rd move is 3.Kc1, hoping to attack the knight with the White king. But after 3...Kd6 4.Kb2 (4.Bg6 Ke7 5.Bxh5 Nd3+ 6.Kd2 Ne5 should hold) 4...Nc6, the game is drawn.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Stockfish on depth-22 states that the position is +1.41 for White. However, eventually if Black gets rid of every pawn but the h-pawn, it's a wrong rook pawn draw.

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, stockfish, alphazero
---


# Question
Title: How to handle Black's Bc5 in Bird's Leningrad?
I want to learn and play the Bird's Opening, Reverse Leningrad Variation, as White. I'm having a hard time with some aspects of this opening which keep coming up. I want to avoid a Stonewall-like setup (d4/e3/f4) as it's boring and doesn't fit my style. It's a little difficult to find good information on this variation.

One of the more common issues I keep dealing with is Black's ...Bc5 move, either before or after White's castling. Here are some examples:

Before castling: 1. f4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. g3 Bc5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. d3 O-O and I have to play either e3 or d4 in order to castle, it seems?

After castling: 1.f4 d5 2.g3 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.O-O O-O 6.d3 Nc6 7.c3 Bc5+ 8.Kh1 and now I have to deal with the possible ...d4 push. I know the moves in this example aren't great, for example Black moving the bishop twice, but it just serves as an example of a type of scenario that keeps coming up in my games. I don't want to allow the ...d4 push. And the Bc5 can be chased back with b4 push, but it can stay on that diagonal, causing me problems. And I really don't want to play d4 because I don't like that pawn formation. (Or is White's d4 a normal part of the Reverse Leningrad variation of the Bird's?) And also I don't like playing e3 because it seems weak.

I know an e4 push for White is thematic in this opening. But I often run into situations like this where I don't get a chance for that push, I'm more worried about things like Black's knight going to g4 and joining forces with the Bc5. And e3 seems like too passive an approach to put a lid on that. Of course if I get a chance to push h3 I can prevent ...Ng4, but often I have too much to deal with in the centre, and not enough time to get that push in.

I'm not a very highly-rated player, but I study hard, and just want to understand the themes of this variation. For players who use this variation a lot, how do you deal with Black's moves: Bc5, d4 and Ng4? (For Bc5 I don't mind moving Kh1, but should I let that bishop stay around?)

Additionally, do you tend to push both c3 and d3, and put the QN on a3? (These moves seem to be part of the main line, or at least considered book.) If so, could someone also help me understand what the knight is doing on a3, anyhow?

There are some key ideas and elements of this opening that I think I'm failing to understand. Any help on any of these questions would be much appreciated. (Sorry I didn't embed a chessboard in my post, as I haven't yet learned how to do that -- this is my first post here.) Thanks!

# Answer
> 4 votes
Objectively ...Bc5 is not a great move in this line, the main reason being the reply d4, especially if you haven't played d3 yet. The stonewall with a Bg2-fianchetto is not the most aggressive set-up, but with one or two extra tempi it is worth going for it and follow-up with c4, Nc3, and then either prepare e4 or Ne5.

In any case, if you choose a move order with 0-0 before d3, your opponent will be less tempted to throw in Bc5. He might be afraid of d2-d4 or e2-e3, have already put a pawn on c5, or played Be7 and not want to lose more tempi.

Assuming he plays Bc5 anyway and you don't want to go d4, you just sidestep with Kh1, keep an eye for ...Ng4 tricks (most often countered by Na3-c2, Qe1, or, well, d4, but sometimes you might want to stop it altogether with h3), and then play the standard Leningrad moves c3 and a4. If Black doesn't react you will grab queenside space with b4, possibly even trapping the bishop.

If Black goes a7-a5 to stop that, the manoeuvre Na3-c2 covers e3 and add control on b4 and d4. Bc1 is usually developped to d2. Your main plan afterwards should be e2-e4: without a pawn on c5, Black is in danger of getting pawnrolled in the center.

An eventual d5-d4 by Black, without a pawn on c5, is not very frightening. Don't take on d4 unless it wins a pawn. Instead of Nc2, Nc4 becomes another possibility. Same plans: e2-e4 (but don't forget about en passant captures - most often it is no problem because of the sequence: e2-e4 dxe3ep d3-d4 Bc5 moves, Bxe3), Ne5 invasions, h3-g4 expansion followed by Qe1-g3/h4 and possibly f5...

If Bc5 is played before you castle, well, there is always d4. But even without d4, if you are in a hurry to castle, a pawn chain d2-e3 will do. I suppose the most accurate is to continue your Leningrad plans before castling nor touching the central panws: c3, a4, b4 if allowed, Na3-c2, keping your options in the center: either d4, or d2-e3, or d3-e4, depending on Black's set-up.

Of course, this is all general ideas and many subtleties may happen depending on the precise move order. But the rule of thumb is: don't be afraid of Bc5.

One of those tricks:

```
[FEN ""]
1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Nbd7 (4...Bc5 5.d4 (5.c3) (5.e3)) 5.O-O Bc5 6.Kh1 O-O 7.c3 a5 8.a4 c6 9.Na3 Qe7 10.d3 Ng4 (10...e5 11.fe5) 11.Nc2 (11.d4) (11.Qe1 {intending h3 or e4} Ne3? 12.Bxe3 Bxe3 13.d4 {and Na3-c2xe3 is a similar trap}) Nf2 (11...e5 12.fxe5 Ngxe5 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.d4) 12.Rxf2 Bxf2 13.e3 {and the Bf2 is trapped}

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
First of all, the Bc5 can be quite annoying as White has weakened himself on the g1-a7 diagonal. White can just play Kf1, d3, and then aim for e2-e4, a thematic move. Then, the best strategy is to use the e and f pawns as a steamroller, with e5, Re1, f5. Black's bishop is not doing anything to protect the queen, and White is virtually up a piece.

So just ignore that bishop.

---
Tags: opening, birds-opening
---


# Question
Title: Can K + N vs K force black into any corner?
Can white force this position

```
    [Title "KN vs K"]
    [FEN "8/8/8/8/8/8/5k1N/7K w - - 0 1"]

```

into this position?

```
    [Title "KN vs K"]
    [FEN "k7/8/1K1N4/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Background: Yesterday I finally figured out the **KBN vs K** after one year of trial and error. Solving endgame problems like this is like crack to my brain. The 'fifth' *fundamental checkmate* and next in line seems to be the **KNN vs KP**.

In this game, one of the Ns only play a passive role, with the other N and the K are doing all the moves, I started wondering if the same approach is possible in the **KBN vs K**: Force the king to the corner with only K and N, and then deliberately deliver the checkmate with on B's first move.

Any concrete suggestions that could lead to an answer will be greatly appreciated.

A related question: is there an engine that can search for such non-checkmate positions?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I am not aware of being able to use an engine to calculate the possibility of such moves and no it is not possible to do this with one knight.

The easiest way to figure this out is by backtracking the position by one or two moves. No matter in which position the white king or knight were before this situation arose, black was not obligated to move to the corner of the board.

```
1k6/8/K2N4/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 0

```

black can move to C7

```
8/k7/2KN4/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

black can move to A6

```
8/k1K5/3N4/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

black can move to A6 here as well

```
2k5/8/1K6/1N6/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

And Regardless of the position of the Knight the black king has a square on D8 to go to.

The only way to actually get this done is if the king was in the corner to begin with:

```
k7/8/1K6/1N6/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
No. If that were possible then KN could stalemate the lone King by force (WTM 1 Nb5, 2 Na7, 3 Nc6; BTM Kb7 2 Kc6 Ka8 3 Kb5! Ka7 4 Ka5 etc.), and I already checked (as reported in this answer) that stalemate cannot be forced in general.

# Answer
> 0 votes
If KNN vs KP is a win in some cases then white has to be able to corner the black king while the other knight blockades the pawn. After cornering the king the other knight releases the pawn and then moves over to do the mate. That was one end game that I did not bother memorizing. But logic says KN vs K can corner the king otherwise the mate would not be possible if the other knight can do it before the pawn can queen.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Well, the main problem in trying to force the Black king into a corner is that you can't control enough squares for that to happen.

Let us look at KvK, where opposition keeps Black's king from advancing. But Black's king is constantly shuffling, and may escape at any time if White loses a tempo.

When the knight comes in, it spends a move on boxing Black's king in, so Black's king can escape, and will never be forced into a corner.

---
Tags: engines, endgame, knights, knight-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Does the Caro-Kann or the Tartakower System of the Queen's Gambit Declined help with positional skills?
In the following Wikipedia biography on Gary Kasparov, I read the following:

> From age 7, Kasparov attended the Young Pioneer Palace in Baku and, at 10 began training at Mikhail Botvinnik's chess school under noted coach Vladimir Makogonov. Makogonov helped develop Kasparov's positional skills and taught him to play the Caro-Kann Defence and the Tartakower System of the Queen's Gambit Declined.

This got me thinking: does the Caro-Kann or the Tartakower System of the Queen's Gambit Declined help with positional skills or was this probably due more to the fact that Makogonov was familiar with it?

# Answer
Based on the sentence syntax I don't believe that the author is intending to make a connection between the mentioned opening systems and positional skills. Every strong player must have good positional skills and must also be a good tactician. You could not become a world class player without both.

Both of these openings do have strong positional ideas and Makogonov (who would be classed as "positional") played them both. So it is likely that he taught them because he believed that they were instructive and because he was familiar with them.
> 9 votes

# Answer
I think that playing slower, more 'positional' defenses like the Caro Kann and Tartakower System of the QGD absolutely do help develop positional skills, but of course those are two openings out of many.
> 4 votes

# Answer
There are also many more openings for positional play, like the London System, Nimzo-Indian, etc. Perhaps the best choices are systems since they require little or no theory.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, kasparov, positional-play, queens-gambit, caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: Why is White's accuracy 99.7% instead of 100.0%?
Here is a short game played online at chess.com.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 d6 5. d4 Bb6 6. dxe5

```

Black resigned for some unknown reason; maybe a mouse slip or he/she needs to leave. When the game was analysed at chess.com, the game accuracy of white is 99.7%. In my humble opinion, every White move is accurate (unless one considers 3. Bb5 to be more accurate than 3. Bc4). But why is the game accuracy for white is not 100%? What is the 0.3% that White l missed?

# Answer
Probably, as you pointed out, Bb5 instead of Bc4.

The Ruy Lopez is considered very very marginally better/more critical than the Italian by humans, so it'd make sense that the engine used here'd agree.

Certainly, however, the Italian is fine, and the difference is very marginal.
> 19 votes

# Answer
Well, we can trust the engine in some cases when they analyse, but in this case, we are looking at book moves. Since the Italian Game is perfectly reasonable, don't worry about the 0.3% off.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Assuming the engine performing the analysis is Stockfish (sounds reasonable, since the engine is presumably running on CPU) then it's probable the move it considers subpar is 4.c3. Left to its own devices Stockfish *will* occasionally play the Giuoco Piano, but it will usually play the Giuoco Pianissimo - i.e. 4.d3 instead of 4.c3.

Indeed, the cloud analysis by Stockfish 11 at lichess.org/analysis gives, at depth 45, +0.3 for 4.d3 compared to +0.2 for 4.c3. You can also check out the SF-Lc0 bookless bonus TCEC ran in 2019. There were ten Italian games, all played by Stockfish, and of these games 9/10 continued with 4.d3.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, engines, analysis, italian-game
---


# Question
Title: Why isn't Bird's Opening at least as popular as the Dutch Defence?
The Dutch Defence is a fairly popular response to 1. d4. So shouldn't 1. f4 (Bird's opening), viewed as a Dutch plus a tempo, be at least as popular?

# Answer
> 10 votes
A good opening for Black seldom is a great choice for White even with a tempo up. Grandmaster Alex Yermolinsky discusses reasons for this in his book "The Road to Chess Improvement". One of the main reasons is that the opening goals are not the same for both sides in the opening, and schemes that are suitable for defense or counterattack are much less valuable for assuming the initiative.

Famously, when grandmaster Vladimir Malaniuk, a great proponent of the Dutch Leningrad with Black, had some issues with his White repertoire, someone suggested to him that he should start with 1.f4. His retort was definitive:

> That extra move's gonna' hurt me!

As a side note, the Dutch is not *that* popular, especially at the highest level.

# Answer
> 2 votes
It helps to think about it at a very basic strategic level: With white you're supposed to play for the initiative and not induce a weakness on move 1... `1.d4` for example is a safe first step towards claiming the centre, while creating active squares for the queen, `b1` knight and activating the `c1` bishop, all while stopping black from any immediate `e5` attempt (i.e., directly challenging black's options in claiming the centre for themselves). Whereas `1.f4` does none of those except for stopping `e5`, while also permanently weakening the kingside. Central pawns (`d` and `e`) are safer commitments because they're advancements on files where the king doesn't belong. Same cannot be said for `f` pawn in general.

All these apply to black playing the Dutch (`1...f5`) as well, and explain why it is not as commonly adopted as other sounder systems vs `1.d4`. As a rule of thumb (so to be taken with a grain of salt), the "good" openings are those that tend to be less committal (starting from the moved pawns, hemmed-in pieces and induced weaknesses...) and offer more flexibility in the middlegame (in terms of transpositions for instance).

# Answer
> 0 votes
The problem is that many players who don't know much, if any, of the theory and history behind the Bird, think it's unsound, especially due to the From Gambit.

Additionally, there aren't any world class players who have used it regularly since Bent Larsen.

# Answer
> 0 votes
This is because it gives up White's advantage. Sure, it is playable, but it isn't so good from a White perspective. The Dutch defence for Black, however, has the purpose of creating an imbalance, and so is reasonable.

However, I still prefer Bird's opening.

---
Tags: opening, pawn-structure, dutch-defense, birds-opening
---


title: All-out attack or slow attack

text:
# Question
Title: All-out attack or slow attack
Today I was playing chess against somebody at my internship company. He went all-out attack in the begin and I was only defending. He actually made some mistakes and lost his queen, rook and bishop. I won in the end fairly easy. We had a discussion afterwards about the 'all-out attack strategy'.

Is it a good thing to go all out attack or should you attack slowly? What is the best way or is it different each player? I'm not really good and the other is just as 'good' as I am.

# Answer
To me, the game you described was an absolute beginner game. It wasn't important how the attack was conducted, all-out or slow, you opponent was just blundering pieces and even the queen! It didn't matter whether you were defending or attacking or doing nothing, you'd have won easily in any case. Your opponent had absolutely no idea what he was talking about.

At this level, it'd be better to focus on avoid giving away pieces.

But to answer your question, if I was to play your game, I'd go for the Scholar's Mate or launch a quick but dirty pawn-storm. I'd also move my queen out early and hope for some free pieces to capture. It'd be a diseaster against anyone experienced, but highly effective against a beginner.
> 8 votes

# Answer
**Summary:** It depends on the position. If the king is vulnerable, you have the initiative, there are many open lines or you have made material or positional concessions, then an all-out attack *may* be possible, but you have to be sure of your calculations.

Based on this, there is no decisively better way to approach the question of slow vs. all out attack. Players have preferences and this is reflected in their opening repertoires. E.g. if a player prefers all out attacks, they may play gambit openings or openings that accept structural deficits to gain open lines.

The speed of the attack depends on the position, specifically:

1. The size of the *initiative*. Because the initiative is short term, if you have a large initiative then you need to use it e.g. to checkmate, gain material or threaten to checkmate/gain material. If you have a milder initiative, you need to maintain that edge, or convert it into something more tangible, e.g. material, space, better pawn structure etc.
2. The quality of *development*. Development relates to how many pieces are off their starting squares and in active, well placed positions. This is important because if you have developed more pieces, then you have more in play, so it is like playing with a bigger army. But development is like the initiative: it is short term (your opponent isn't going to leave their forces at home for long) and varies in size (having 3 more pieces out than your opponent is a significant advantage. One more is less significant)
3. *Material (1)*. A player may sacrifice material to gain the initiatve, increase development, control open lines, restrict the opponent's pieces etc. The amount of material that is sacrificed influences the speed of the attack. If I sacrifice a pawn and the attack does not succeed, then I might be able to defend an inferior endgame and draw. If I sacrifice the Queen and the attack does not succeed, then I should probably resign the game!
4. *Material (2)*. I mentioned the amount of material there is on the board, but that does not account for the quality of the material. For example, bishop of opposite colour middlegame situations favour the player with the initiative, and the amount of material often takes a back seat. Why? Because if I am attacking using dark square weaknesses, and my opponent doesn't have a dark square bishop to defend those weaknesses (say they have a light square bishop), then it is like I am attacking up a whole piece. The converse is true: if my opponent gets the iniative and attacks me on the light squares, then I have a problem. Lastly, bishop of opposite colour games are very interesting, because they tend to be exceptions to bullet point 3, i.e. bishop of opposite colour endgames are notoriously drawish due to the opportunity for one side to build a fortress, meaning material deficits are less important in these games
5. *Open lines*. Lines (ranks, files, diagonals) that are open lead to quicker attacks, as there are more targets, e.g. pawns sat on open lines to be attacked by the rooks. Closed games lead to slow, building attacks instead. As an aside, one player may take a structural deficit to gain open lines, hence an attack. One famous example of this is the *isolated Queen pawn*. The c and e files are open, but there is a long term structural concession in the form of the pawn being potentially weak.
6. *King position*. A king that is still in the centre may warrant opening lines to it to drum up a mating attack
7. *A specific target*. This is very broad, but examples of specific targets to aim for are: queen developed too early (you can develop quickly by kicking the queen around), backwards pawn (you can build a slow attack by piling up on it and maybe winning the pawn eventually), defense too far away (e.g. all of the opponent's pieces are separated from the king) etc.
> 4 votes

# Answer
**Attack or defense should be an outcome**, not a decision. You better don't go for all-out attack or slow attack or attack in any way **without a vulnerability in opponents position**, as it will end like this:

<sub>(source: virginmedia.com)</sub>

Normally, you should evaluate the position, if opponents position is vulnerable you have to go for an attack, if your position is vulnerable you have to go for a defense. If you ignore the facts and decide with emotions, you lose a lot.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Aggressiveness and the initiative are important to have. As White, you have the initiative by virtue of the first move. Black will strive first of all to blunt this initiative to reach equality and then may try to win. I've discovered over the years that mistakes of aggressiveness are not necessarily fatal, whereas defensive mistakes usually have more serious consequences. Hence it may often be worth while to give up something to gain or keep the initiative, such as the cost of a pawn in an opening gambit. If you gradually can improve your position before beginning a strong attack, that can be equally successful. A gambit isn't required. Controlling the center is generally necessary before you can launch a successful attack against the castled king. For that reason a premature attack by your opponent shouldn't succeed, barring any glaring mistakes on your part.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Are you actually serious about wanting to get better? To the point where you could play in tournaments for example.

It sounds like you are not, because you don't want to learn openings. But it annoys you that other people in the company are better than you. How much does it annoy you? How much work are you prepared to put in?

Just asking a casual question about whether it is better to attack or defend won't do it. Attacking is more fun, and that might be as far as you want to take it. Serious players will have personal styles and preferences, but will know that attacks must be prepared. That means understanding openings. If you are very serious you will need to learn them. If you are less serious you will need to know some general ideas, such as what is a weakness.

If you have only been playing for a month you don't know yet how important chess may be to you. Play a bit more. Have fun. If you find that you do want to work a bit, you will probably be able to think of a better question.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Only attack if your own position is consolidated. Then, you can be aggressive or simply apply pressure on your opponent's position. However, if your opponent cannot counter-attack in a position, go on and attack.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy, attack
---


title: Eye strain from playing online chess

text:
# Question
Title: Eye strain from playing online chess
How do you avoid eye strain while playing online chess? I wear glasses that filters UV light, take a 5-minute break every hour, play on a large screen monitor (23 inch with a refresh rate of 60 Hz), and use lubricant eye drops twice a day. But I also believe that one of the big factor is that I don't blink enough while playing chess. My eyes are most of the time wide open, in order to avoid blundering. I would really appreciate your feedback, advice, and experiences to avoid such kind of problems.

# Answer
Windows 10 has a setting called "Night Light" in the display settings, and Mac has Night Shift which helps me with eye-strain by reducing blue-light that can cause eye-strain. You can also try the 20-20-20 technique instead of taking a 5 minute break every hour. My eye doctor suggested staring at something 20 feet away, for 20 seconds, every 20 minutes. Probably hard to do when you're playing a lot of blitz games, but something to consider. Good luck.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Using Eye Drops (fake tears) can be useful when exceeding recommended screen time.

What also helps me is taking frequent breaks every hour and drinking plenty of water.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The best way is to look away from the screen every 15 minutes. It reduces stress on your eyes and you can concentrate better when you return to the game.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: online-chess
---


# Question
Title: How to prepare for a handicap game (queen odds) / strategy?
I made a bet with a non-neglegible stake that I will win a game against a friend without queen. My Elo rating is about 2000-2100, my friend's should be around 1400. Today I played with the black pieces with a rook odds and I won.

He didn't make big blunders and he played the opening quite well (e4, developed both knights and the white bishop and sacrificed on f7 for my 2nd rook), but he got lost in the middle game and did not know what to do.

These are my observations:

1) He knows that he wants to exchange as many pieces as possible even with slight material costs.

2) He knows how to play the standard textbook e4 - e5 opening, but I guess he is not familiar with other openings.

3) He didn't make huge blunders, so I cannot expect to sacrifice pieces and win in the opening phase.

4) The middle and endgame should be the parts of the game where he is less experienced.

5) I expect him to be weak in tactics and to loose pawns in not-obvious situations.

When I play without a rook odds, I try to keep the lines closed or to play with white a really aggressive e4, f4. However, I don't want to go into e4, since he knows that opening to a certain extent. I would rather go for c4, which is my standard opening. Ideally I would like to go for opposite castling with a pawns attack.

**What should be my strategy for that game? / How can I prepare for that game?**

**In which variant of the english opening is it difficult for a beginner to exploit a queen?**

# Answer
> 3 votes
Years ago my club in England ran a handicap tournament in the summer, which I organised and also played in. Had you and your friend been members, I think you would have played at Queen odds, or maybe Rook plus time handicap. In our tournaments the odds-givers did surprisingly well. Here is some advice based on that, although your own list is already pretty good.

1. Dont go for a briliancy. If it happens it happens, but dont set your sights on it.
2. Done even go for active development. Pieces out in the middle get exchanged off. Keep things closed, but retain the option to open them up.
3. Dont set up direct threats unless they are well hidden or unstoppable. You may just force him to make good moves.
4. Set up an unfamiliar situation in the opening. I had good results with 1. b3. English could be good also. And it still is an English without your Queen. You just wont be playing book lines.
5. Keep central control and identify important squares.
6. Stay mobile and flexible. Steadily improve your position. Wait for the opponent to make mistakes. He will. You are correct that he will not make good plans. He will be reluctant to sacrifice.

Playing like this you will probably win some material about once in every ten moves. Wait until material is fairly equal before you try for a mating attack.

# Answer
> 2 votes
2. makes no sense. Opening theory is thrown off the window the moment you give material odds. All considerations about "knowing the opening" do not apply.

Play the type of game that allows you to put pressure without trading pieces. In the English opening, white has a queen. You won't be playing an English opening. I'd suggest you to go for a position with a closed center that allows for active play on the wings. Something like a King's Indian pawn structure assuming both sides castled short

# Answer
> 1 votes
1. Don't trade material - It will make your handicap more apparent as the game continues.
2. Attack. If you can overwhelm your opponent with your pieces, then that is the best way. You can't stand to be passive.
3. Play openings that don't involve the queen much, e.g., The Scotch game clearly doesn't work for White as White loses a pawn with exd4.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, preparation, handicapping
---


# Question
Title: Opposite colored bishops endgame: Is this a draw?
```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Rated Correspondence game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/GILERcIS"]
[Date "2020.02.26"]
[Round "-"]
[White "mathwhiz16"]
[Black "theMortician"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[UTCDate "2020.02.26"]
[UTCTime "23:31:55"]
[WhiteElo "1795"]
[BlackElo "2017"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "+3"]
[BlackRatingDiff "-6"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "-"]
[ECO "D02"]
[Opening "Queen's Pawn Game: London System"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 d5 3. Nf3 { D02 Queen's Pawn Game: London System } Bf5 4. e3 e6 5. Nbd2 Bd6 6. Bg3 Nbd7 7. Nh4 Ne4?! { (-0.44 → 0.11) Inaccuracy. Bg4 was best. } (7... Bg4 8. f3) 8. Nxf5 exf5 9. Bd3 Ndf6 10. O-O O-O 11. Nf3 Nxg3 12. hxg3 Ne4?! { (-0.37 → 0.42) Inaccuracy. g6 was best. } (12... g6 13. Rc1 c6 14. c4 dxc4 15. Bxc4 Kg7 16. Bd3 Qd7 17. a3 h6 18. Qa4 Rfe8 19. Qc2) 13. c4 dxc4 14. Bxc4 Kh8?! { (-0.14 → 0.47) Inaccuracy. Qe7 was best. } (14... Qe7 15. Re1 c6 16. Bd3 Rfe8 17. Rc1 Rad8 18. Qb3 g6 19. Re2 Bb8 20. Qd1 Rc8 21. Qb3) 15. Qb3 Qe7 16. Qxb7 Rab8 17. Qxa7 Rxb2? { (0.77 → 1.95) Mistake. Nxg3 was best. } (17... Nxg3) 18. Qa5?! { (1.95 → 0.99) Inaccuracy. Rab1 was best. } (18. Rab1 Rc2 19. Qa4 Rc3 20. Rb3 Rxb3 21. Qxb3 c5 22. dxc5 Nxc5 23. Qc2 Qe4 24. Qxe4 fxe4) 18... Bb4? { (0.99 → 2.68) Mistake. g6 was best. } (18... g6) 19. Qxf5 Nd2 20. Nxd2 Bxd2 21. Rab1 Qb4?! { (2.84 → 4.30) Inaccuracy. Rb6 was best. } (21... Rb6 22. Rxb6 cxb6 23. Bd5 Qc7 24. Be4 g6 25. Qf6+ Kg8 26. Rb1 Ba5 27. Bc6 Rd8 28. d5) 22. Rxb2 Qxb2 23. Rb1 Qa3 24. Qe5 Ba5 25. Rb3 Qxa2? { (3.89 → 8.20) Mistake. Qc1+ was best. } (25... Qc1+ 26. Kh2) 26. Bxf7?? { (8.20 → 2.23) Blunder. Qe7 was best. } (26. Qe7 Rc8 27. Qd7 Rf8 28. Qxf7 Rd8 29. Kh2 Qc2 30. Rb5 Qg6 31. Qxg6 hxg6 32. Rxa5 Rf8) 26... Bb6?! { (2.23 → 3.23) Inaccuracy. Be1 was best. } (26... Be1 27. f3) 27. Qe7 Qa8 28. Rb5 Qd8 29. Qxd8 Rxd8 30. Re5 g6 31. Re8+?! { (2.67 → 1.77) Inaccuracy. Bc4 was best. } (31. Bc4) 31... Rxe8 32. Bxe8 Kg7 33. Bc6 Kf6 34. Kf1 h5 35. Ke2 g5 36. Kf3 Ba5 37. Be4 Be1 38. Ke2 Bb4 39. f3 Bd6 40. g4 hxg4 41. fxg4 Bg3 42. Kf3 Bd6 43. Bf5 Ba3 44. e4 Bb2 45. e5+ Ke7 46. Ke4 Bc1 47. Bc8 Bd2 48. Kf5 Be3 49. d5 Bd2 50. Bb7 Be3 51. Bc6 Bd2 52. Ke4 Bc3 53. Bb5 Bb2 54. Kf5 Bc1 55. Ba6 Bd2 56. Bc8 Bc1 57. Be6 Bd2 58. Ke4 Bc3 59. Bg8 Bb2 60. Bh7 Bc3 61. Bg6 Bb2 { The game is a draw. } 1/2-1/2

```

The annotations/variations are from Stockfish on lichess. I am White(mathwhiz16). After playing a confusing middlegame where I missed several tactical shots, I played 31. Re8+ because I was sure being up two pawns and having a passed pawn was enough to ensure victory, regardless of bishops of opposite colors. Needless to say, I botched the ending.

1. Is the position after 31. Re8+ a draw?
2. If not, where did I mess up? I think my final mistake was 49. d5, ensuring my king was tied to my pawn, but was it winning before that? After that? What is the correct strategy to win?
3. Is the final position a draw or did I miss something obvious?

Note that Stockfish(depth=21) gives White at a permanent +1 advantage so it's possible I missed something.

# Answer
I disagree that it is a draw. In practice, it might not be a good practical decision to trade the rooks there if you are not sure it is a win, but it was almost certainly a win.

Despite the opposite-colored bishops, you are up two pawns, but more importantly, and the reason it is still a win, is that the black pawn is on the h-file, and the unbalanced pawns make this untenable for black. If it had been on the f-file, I would agree that it was a draw. It also helps that you can play the K to d3, then f4, e4, and e5.

In opposite-colored bishop endings, the stronger side wants to keep the pawns on the opposite color of the bishop to control both colors, making it easier to bring the king up and help the passed pawns advance; while the weaker side, black here, wants to keep the pawns on the same color of his bishop trying to use the dark squares to blockade. That is just not possible for black to accomplish here.

This is not every possible line, but I used a lot of endgame experience on the master level to try plans that would make some sense, and after the first few moves bringing the kings up, all the Stockfish evals are at least +5, and shortly after, they go to +9, which indicates a guaranteed win. I stopped all the analysis below when it got to +9 or greater.

```
 [FEN "3r3k/2p2B1p/1b4p1/4R3/3P4/4P1P1/5PP1/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Re8+ Rxe8 2. Bxe8 Kg7 3. Kf1 Kf6 (3... g5 {Trying the plan to put the pawns on the dark squares.} 4. f4 h6 5. Ke2 Kf6 6. Bc6 gxf4 (6... Ke6 $2 {The evals here are already +9.} 7. Kd3 Kd6 8. Ba4 Ba5 9. e4 Be1 10. f5 $18) 7. gxf4 Kf5 8. d5 Ba5 9. Kf3 $18) 4. Ke2 Ke7 (4... c5 5. d5 Ke5 (5... c4 6. f4 Kf5 7. Kf3 c3 8. e4+ Kf6 9. e5+ Ke7 10. Ba4 $18) 6. Bc6 g5 7. f4+ Kf5 8. d6 gxf4 9. gxf4 c4 10. Bd5 c3 11. Kf3 Kf6 12. Bb3 Bc5 13. e4 $18) 5. Ba4 Kd6 (5... g5 6. f4 h6 7. Kd3 Ba5 8. e4 Be1 9. f5 Bxg3 10. e5 $18) 6. Bb3 {To prepare d5 should black play c5 trying to trade the pawn off. This only works because white has a pawn on f4.} h6 7. f4 Ba5 8. e4 $18

```

Supplemental analysis of the game based on Quintec's request below.

```
 [FEN "3r3k/2p2B1p/1b4p1/4R3/3P4/4P1P1/5PP1/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Re8+ Rxe8 2. Bxe8 Kg7 3. Bc6 {There is no harm here, but you should really get in the habit of centralizing your king early in the endgame.} Kf6 4. Kf1 h5 $4 {In opposite-colored-bishop endings, these belong on the other color trying to setup a blockade. Here g6+h5 are just targets.} 5. Ke2 {Not bad, but f4 again with the possible line.} (5. f4 g5 6. Ke2 Ba5 {Or any move really.} (6... g4 $4 7. Be8 $18) (6... Ke7 7. Kd3 Ba5 8. e4 Be1 9. e5 Bxg3 10. f5 $18) 7. Be8 h4 8. gxh4 gxh4 (8... gxf4 9. exf4 $18) 9. e4 $18) 5... g5 6. Kf3 {Still f4.} Ba5 7. Be4 {There is nothing wrong with this in terms of spoiling the position, but it is clear that you are already headed down the wrong path.} Be1 8. Ke2 Bb4 9. f3 $2 {The wrong idea.} Bd6 $2 (9... c5 {The best try, and already close to drawing, but not quite. Even in the closest line, black will need to play perfectly, and know endgame theory.} 10. d5 (10. dxc5 $2 Bxc5 11. f4 Be7 {The only move per the computer, and the hidden point is that the Be7 will need to be able to take on h4 soon.} 12. Bc6 Ke6 13. Kf3 h4 14. gxh4 gxf4 15. exf4 Bxh4 16. g4 {With a tablebase draw.}) 10... Ke5 11. Bg6 {And there, that bad move h5 comes into play.} h4 (11... Kxd5 12. Bf7+ Ke5 13. Bxh5 c4 14. Bg6 Bc5 15. f4+ $18) 12. gxh4 gxh4 13. f4+ $1 Kxd5 14. Bf7+ {And the two passers decide.} Ke4 (14... Kd6 15. Bc4 $18) 15. Bc4 Ba3 16. Bb5 Bc1 17. Bc6+ Kf5 18. Bd5 Kg4 19. Kf2 Kf5 (19... h3 20. Be6+) 20. Kf3 Kf6 21. e4 $18 {You can already see how much more difficult this ending became.}) 10. g4 $4 {This gives away the win. Note that had they been same-colored bishops and both had dark-squared bishops, both sides WOULD want them on light squares.} hxg4 11. fxg4 Bg3 $2 (11... c5 {Immediately draws.} 12. d5 Ke5 {And the blockade is complete.}) 12. Kf3 Bd6 13. Bf5 Ba3 $2 (13... c5 14. Ke4 cxd4 15. exd4 Ke7 {Again with a blockade and draw.}) 14. e4 Bb2 (14... c5 {Now, it is too late.} 15. e5+ Ke7 16. d5 $18) 15. e5+ Ke7 16. Ke4 {It is still a draw here, but white has made progress compared to the easy draws earlier. Now, c5 is ruled out for the foreseeable future.} Bc1 17. Bc8 Bd2 18. Kf5 Be3 19. d5 Bd2 20. Bb7 Be3 21. Bc6 Bd2 22. Ke4 Bc3 23. Bb5 Bb2 24. Kf5 Bc1 25. Ba6 Bd2 26. Bc8 Bc1 27. Be6 Bd2 28. Ke4 Bc3 29. Bg8 Bb2 30. Bh7 Bc3 31. Bg6 Bb2 1/2-1/2

```
> 5 votes

# Answer
> Is the position after 31. Re8+ a draw?

Yes. With opposite coloured bishops you need to be able to generate two passed pawns and they must also be far enough apart. If they are too close then the opponent's bishop and king can cover both of them. This is why you need to know your endgames. Without this knowledge it is very easy to turn a winning position into a drawn one.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Houdini 6.02=at depth 40 give the following position: WHITE King in f5 Bishop in b5 pawns in d5 e5 f4 g5 g2.BLACK King in e7 Bishop in g3 pawns in c7 g7 and h6 BLACK to move. It give a fixed score of +2.00 , but when you re- analyse the resulting position , it give a White win.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Analyzing without engines suggest it'a win for white. (as already pointed out by PhishMaster) The main plan (if black just waits) is pushing e and f pawn to e5 and f6.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: endgame, bishops
---


# Question
Title: Is there a terminology for "the worst winning move"?
What do people call a move which maintains a winning position but is the worst among all such moves?

For example, h8=N+ is such a move in the following game:

```
[FEN "8/7P/6k1/8/8/8/B1K5/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. h8=N+

```

I will not normally play such moves in serious games, but in casual games such moves might be good practice for endgame skills.

# Answer
> 8 votes
The short answer is no.

In 25 years of chess experience I have never heard such a term. There isn't unless there is some definition somewhere in a shady club packed with sadists who love to mate with several knights!

# Answer
> 8 votes
In a winning position, the best move is the one with the shortest depth to mate. So, the “worst winning move” would be the one with maximal depth to mate. So it seems reasonable to call it the move with maximal depth to mate. However, there are two important caveats:

1. If you repeatedly play these kinds of moves, then your depth to mate may increase, rather than decrease. Due to the 50 move and 3-fold repetition rules, you might actually draw on accident by playing these moves. At this point, these moves are no longer still winning, so some care needs to be taken.
2. Practically speaking, there can be benefits to playing such a move over a move with lower depth to mate. For example, the “best move” might involve a tricky sacrifice, whereas the “worst winning move” might be a trade that leads to a simple, easily won endgame. If you can’t analyze the sacrifice fully, but are certain of the won endgame, it’s hard to call the safer play a mistake.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Take note that without the 3-fold repetition rule and the 50-move rule, choosing a worst winning move (i.e. one that leads to a losing position for your opponent with the maximum moves under best play) at each turn may lead to an infinite game rather than a win!

But anyway, the move you suggest in your question is certainly not the worst winning move, as once you promote to a knight you will have to reach checkmate within 50 moves. A worse winning move is `h8=Q` and then to trap the opponent to 2 squares before dallying around with your pieces and then forcing the opponent to capture your bishop just before the 50-move rule kicks in, giving you another 50 moves to play cat and mouse before the finishing bite.

# Answer
> 2 votes
There is no measure which distinguishes one winning move from another, other than perhaps number of moves (which is only important if that number could cause a draw). Winning is winning.

To define a score which differentiates winning moves, we would need an off-board metric. Consider: if someone is actively trying to practice knight and bishop end games, this may be a *very* good move. However, if one is trying to make the game shorter (which is a very typical metric, even if there is no draw in sight), it could be a poor choice compared to promoting to a queen.

However, if I may draw from some non-chess history, I'd recommend a term from the story of Mel. Mel was a software developer in the age of drum memory. Drum memory was a fascinating beast because all of the data was stored on a rotating drum that rotated at a very predicable rate. If you knew how long your instruction would take, you could make sure that the next instruction's memory was right underneath the read-head when it was needed.

Mel was known for doing delay loops where he would intentionally place the next instruction so that it just barely passed the head before it was needed. Then the drum would have to do a full circle before reading the memory. There were optimizers which would place the memory in the optimum place, but he sought the opposite.

His term: it was the most pessimum location.

I think that if you called this move "the most pessimum winning move," you would at least get a few smiles when you explained it!

# Answer
> 1 votes
Least best?

It depends what you mean by worst.
Is that from your perspective or from the one of the person whose decision was to make that move you consider 'worst'.

---
Tags: endgame, terminology, winning
---


title: Move evaluation on armageddon games

text:
# Question
Title: Move evaluation on armageddon games
I am wondering if there is a Stockfish-like evaluation of moves that could take in account armageddon rules, the rules being that you lose if you draw.

I would imagine a strategy of just trading everything off symmetrically would be completely reasonable in a regular game but in armadeddon you lose on a draw, so you have to try something differently.

The same ideas apply to some openings which are likely to give drawish results.

# Answer
> 3 votes
If you set the contempt factor really high in an engine it will likely be able to play armageddon. Contempt factor is how much it accepts (or doesn't accept) draws. If contempt is high enough it should view a draw just as bad as losing.

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Contempt\_Factor is a good article to read on contempt factor if you're unaware of the concept.

---
Tags: stockfish, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: How to master 1.e4 repertoire from scratch
I was a hardcore 1.c4 player. But, for quite some time, the popularity of Nakhmanson Gambit, Jerome Gambit etc. has encouraged me to experiment with 1.e4.

I have read 1.e4 with backup plan before. Now I am preparing myself to master the entire 1.e4 repository \[ECO B00 - C99\] for white, as well as for black. Since I am completely beginner in this line, I have the following questions:

**How can I understand, which opening seeks more attention than others? Should I follow the database to find the most popular reply or it's better to stick with the ECO code serially? How can I link the connection between two openings?** (eg., Scotch Gambit and Urusov Gambit)

# Answer
> 6 votes
*The* special feature of a 1.e4 repertoire is that transpositions are rare. You can have independent repertoires against each of black's replies. This is very different from 1.c4, 1.d4 and 1.Nf3 where moves can often be played in many different orders and you always have to watch out for transpositions between your various lines.

Then these are the "big four":

1...e5 -- The Open Game

1...c5 -- The Sicilian

1...e6 -- The French

1...c6 -- The Caro-Kann

Most of your time should go to those, especially the first three (the CK is also very good but not as popular at amateur level).

Then there is the rest, like

1...d5 -- the Scandinavian

1...d6 and 1...g6 -- the Pirc and Modern (there are transpositions between those)

1...Nf6 -- the Alekhine

And other lines that you can skip for now.

The reason for this is that 1.e4 puts an undefended pawn in the center, and the intended follow-up 2.d4 is hard to prevent as it will be defended by the queen. This is different from 1.d4 where 2.e4 is easy to prevent. That means all replies must immediately have some specific way to deal with that, and the different ways of doing that immediately prevent transpositions.

1...e5 -- black just does the same. 1...c5 -- black will exchange his c-pawn for the d-pawn if it arrives on d4. 1...e6 and 1...c6 -- black will also put a pawn on d5. 1...d5 black immediately puts a pawn on d5 but can't recapture with a pawn. 1...Nf6 -- black attacks the undefended e4 pawn. 1...d6 and 1...g6 -- black lets white play 2.d4 and intends to attack the center later.

Hope this helps.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Adopting e4 is a huge undertaking. Since you played the English, I recommend you incorporate the King's Indian Attack into your repertoire as you can play it against anything you haven't studied yet.

A gambit repertoire is not a bad idea either. You might be able to link lines like: 1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3

1.e4 c5 you can play 2.c4 and head for some kind of English or The Smith-morra gambit, and Grand Prix Attack are good alternatives. Otherwise, Main line Sicilians would take a couple years to learn.

There are plenty of e4 repertoire books/videos, and they try to link lines/simplify things.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The easiest way to close a decent repertoire would probably be to study the Vienese Opening (or maybe Danish Gambit) against 1...e5, some line against the Sicilian (it really depends on how much time you want to spend. You can choose between Open Sicilian, Closed, Alapin... pick up the one you like the most).

Against Caro-Kann you have the Panov. It'll teach you great chess. For the French, just try the Exchange variation. Learn some e4, d4, Be3, Nc3, Qd2 formation against fianchettos and see a couple of games crushing Scandiavians

# Answer
> 0 votes
I have been playing Pirc, even so I can learn different lines.

I even bought some interesting books, one in Spanish "La Defensa Pirc y Fianchetto de Rey" and another in English that I don't remember the name now, but I'll get the name on the website I bought.

Pirc can vary from very simple lines to some of great complexity, where both sides can have advantages.

At first I started playing so I could have something different in my repertoire and maybe catch some opponent off guard.

Your initial chess moves are:

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 ...

# Answer
> 0 votes
I have to say, studying the whole 1.e4 repertoire is quite hard, so I suggest that you narrow your options down. I reccommend the King's gambit. For other non-...e5 responses to 1.e4, you could attempt to rip up the position and to make your first-move advantage apparent.

For the Sicilian, there is another case. Play the Kopek system(Bishop to d3), which creates positions similar to the Ruy Lopez. You should only need to know about the basic strategies to play this system the right way.

---
Tags: opening, psychology, 1.e4, study, eco
---


# Question
Title: chess.com Analysis "Accuracy" - What score is computer like for a given rating?
I have a few questions about engine use detection at online games on chess.com:

1. Let's say both players are rated 1800 on chess.com online play and they make `n` number of moves in a game.

**White** has **90%** accuracy due to very decent moves, while **black** has an accuracy of **97.5%**.

> If `n > 20` (less likely to be good moves by fluke), does this accuracy score mean that black cheated?

From my understanding the accuracy also depends on the number of moves made. For example, if you only made 3 moves and followed a well known opening your score will be 100% and that is not suspicious.

> Thus, at what `n` does the accuracy start to matter when it comes to detecting a cheat?
2. Chess.com seems to not act upon reports of cheating players.

> Does this mean that those players did not cheat?
>
> How to escalate the situation to avoid losing those valuable games?

For example, some players cheat in crucial games in tournaments where a win allows them to advance over you.
3. > What stops someone from turning on a chess engine, when they have a losing position, until they gain an advantage (at which point they play without the engine)?

This seems like it would be impossible to detect as there will be typical moves (normal moves they make) from their previous games, with a few amazing moves sprinkled in.

# Answer
> 4 votes
It depends a lot on the opening and the players. I have played several 'perfect' games when the opening was one I knew and the opponent made less than perfect moves making my choices obvious. I have also played some games with much worse results.

You can NOT conclude anything from one game or even a few games. I was a statistician but this is not an area I have expertise with but I suspect that you may need hundreds or thousands of games to make that accuracy thing meaningful and yet may still have a wide error band on it.

# Answer
> 8 votes
I'm a 1400-1500 rated blitz player on chess.com. Looking through my archives, I see that just this month I had a 34 move game, at a 3 2 time control, where I was rated at a 97.4% accuracy. And I know I wasn't cheating.

When I look at my recent daily games (where I'm rated higher, around 1900) I see a 46 move game where I was rated at 99%.

You can't tell anything from a single game.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Im only 1000 in blitz and get 90 - 95 games at least 5 times each day, no it doesn't mean someone is cheating, grandmasters get high nineties every single game.

# Answer
> 0 votes
We can't determine a cheater from just an accuracy analysis. Perhaps the player was simply good, or most of the moves were forced, leading to high accuracy. However, for an average player to get 99% accuracy, this clearly is a warning.

There is a better approach to detect cheating. A game can be analysed to see how 'computer-like' the moves are. If a person did not use an engine, then it can be clearly seen that he/she is not cheating. However, if an engine was used, then cheating is evident.

---
Tags: engines, analysis, online-chess, cheating
---