# Question
Title: Why does the computer want to undermine this pawn chain at the tip instead of at its root?
I had the following position with black in a game I recently played:

```
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pp1n1ppp/2p1p3/2Pp4/3P4/4PN2/PP3PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 9 5"]

```

and proceeded with 5... e5

However, after the game was over, while reviewing it with a chess engine, Stockfish suggested 5... b6 instead and gives -0.16 (equal)

I find this very confusing. I was taught in Nimzowitsch's My System (among in other sources) that one must undermine a pawn chain at it's root, hence e5 seems appropriate.

So my question is: without looking deep into variations, why is in this case b6 a good move (in principle)? Wouldn't white follow up with b4 and have a nice position?

# Answer
Yes, Black want to play ...e5 *eventually* (even though the root of the pawn chain is actually at f2). But that doesn't mean you need to play it now, if there are better moves at hand.

It seems Stockfish thinks it's good for Black to liquidate the pawn chain as soon as possible. 6. b4 doesn't bring White much; after 6... a5, White can't protect the b4 pawn with a3 so he needs to push it with 7. b5. After that, many lines are possible but the most likely outcome is that all b- and c-pawns are exchanged and Black retains a very small advantage in development.
> 6 votes

# Answer
You would like an answer that does not "go into deep variations", but if all such questions could be answered just on general principles, chess would not be as interesting as it is. In this particular case 5.c5 is definitely premature and BOTH methods of undermining the center work well, transferring the initiative (but no more) to Black. The tactics are important. AS Glorfindel observes, after 6..a5 the chain cannot be preserved. If it could, the assessment would change. Usually, though, you either need to strike soon, or you must be able to see that a delayed strike cannot be prevented.

But computer assessments at early stages of the game do not mean much. Stockfish is just saying that both approaches are playable, and you cannot trust it more than that.
> 7 votes

# Answer
We have some excellent answers, in particular the one by @Glorfindel. You should understand:

* The evaluation by ...e5 and ...c5 are very close. Both are practically playable. Stockfish has to choose one of those as it's best move but that doesn't mean ...e5 is bad.
* 5...b6 attacking the c5 pawn is very typical and very common in Queen's pawn opening. We shouldn't even need an engine for this position.
* 5...b6 is definitely little stronger than ...e5. White is not obliged to play 6.dxe5 after 5...e5, but the c-pawn is harder to defend. 5...b6 gives a small challenge for White to go wrong (the line given by @Glorfindel).
> 3 votes

# Answer
...b6 is not an undermining move - it is a direct assault with tempo to win a pawn on c5. There is a difference. One is a tactical motif (...b6), the other is a strategic idea (attacking the base of the pawn chain).

To know the difference and which to apply and when is the beauty of Chess.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The other answers so far are all great but I would like to reinforce 2 things.

Firstly, small differences in computer evaluations do not mean much. A computer evaluation is a complicated and imperfect thing. In fact, Stockfish on my PC rates 1.Nf3 as +0.16, and 1.e4 and 1.d4 both as +0.15. Does that mean 1.Nf3 is the best opening move?

Even large differences don't necessarily mean much; for example in a main-line King's Indian (with the closed centre), most computers give White a notable advantage (sometimes even more than +1.0) due to the space advantage, whereas in fact Black's attack will force concessions later that the computer can't see yet.

The best computer evaluation is NOT the answer to "What is the best move in this position?", in general.

---

Secondly, you talk about which point in the pawn chain you will attack it. Those are general principles that you use in guiding yourself to find ideas for formulating a plan.

However , a plan is NOT a substitute for calculation. Regardless of your plan, you must calculate each move and evaluate the result of that move, and then compare evaluations between those final results.

If you just move based on principles you will lose due to overlooking simple tactics.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Ok so you have two Questions with the Diagram and the above answers are all correct .

1) When you see a difference of -0.16 please ignore this score . This is just too small for a Human or GMs to make out any difference . The minimum Score should be +-1.0 for any Chess Engine . Even it depends upon a Player's playing strength . Considering the ELO factor there are infinite Chess positions & Opening advantages where a 1600 Elo Player won't be able to find out the best move even the Score shifts to +- \> 3.0 . Amateurs below 2000 Elo sometimes miss a Checkmate combination even the Score can be above 50 .

2) Now coming to your undermining of the Pawn Chain e5 from Black surely attacks the d4 pawn but it is not inviting a forcing reply from White . White can play Be2 a simple Development move and after the exchange ed4,ed4 White maintains the pawn chain at c5 & d4 . b6 on the other hand is more forcing since White has to play b4 or c\*b6 . If white does not play either of these moves then Black seizes the c5 pawn . This is a common position which arises in Amatuer Tournaments and Black should be the one who has the advantage . Reserve e5 in your Kitty and develop your Pieces & Strategy of Black should be to attack on K-side in this position .
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, pawns, pawn-structure
---


title: Attack Opening For White

text:
# Question
Title: Attack Opening For White
I'm kinda new to chess and I'm trying to learn new openings that are aggressive.

I've used the *Fried Liver attack* many times. Are there any other opening(s) which are close to the *Fried Liver attack* that I could use?

# Answer
> 1 votes
**For white**

The Danish Gambit.

**For black**

A variation of the four knights with 4. Bc4 will lead to an opening of the game for black by the means of 4...Nxe4 5. Nxe4 d5.

Alternatively, 5. Bxf7+ Kxf7 6. Nxe4 may also occur with sharp play (although you do give up the bishop pair, Black also gave up his right to castle).

Related: Very Aggressive Openings

# Answer
> 0 votes
If you are familiar with the Fried Liver attack, I recommend you the Evans Gambit.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 3...... Nf6 is fried liver attack. 3....... Bc5 4 b4 leads to Evans.

If you are afraid of losing two pawns in the opening, try the Italian game which is similar to Evans.

Try green game, night at the opera etc.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You can find similar Chess Openings .

1. The Evans gambit . (Play it if you love Tempos and initiative)
2. The Scotch
3. Max Lange Attack
4. Morphy Attack .
5. Philidor Central Attack

There are many more but you need to find it out for yourself.

You can find some good Chess Videos for the above .

Max Lange Attack

Morphy Attack

Philidor Central Attack

Scotch

---
Tags: opening, beginner, fried-liver-attack
---


# Question
Title: What would happen if a game lasted for more than 24 hours?
Technically it is possible for a game to last more than 24 hours, since after 40 or 60 moves each player generally gets a 30-second increment.

In an endgame, the player with the advantage will just need to be careful of the fifty-move rule and the threefold repetition rule, and he would be able to keep pressing for many many hours hoping that his opponent will crack and make a mistake.

But the problem is: 24 hours after the game has started, the next round would need to start!

**So what would happen?**

Some possibilities occur to me, but I don't know which (if any) might apply:

* The entire round might be delayed for everyone participating in the event;
* the next round might start normally on time for everyone, except for 4 players (including the 2 players playing the problematic game) who would need to wait for the problematic game to end;
* the next round might start normally on time for everyone, and the two players who are still playing the problematic game would need to play their next round games while simultaneously continuing the problematic game;
* the arbiters might simply decide to end the problematic game, considering it as a draw;
* the FIDE President might need to add a new rule to prevent this kind of situation from happening again.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Although replies by Brian Towers and StudentT are the right ones (both players would be disqualified) from a theoretical points of view it would be possible that a game has not ended in time for the next round to begin. I would even say that it's possible that it could actually happen in a tournament with 3 rounds per day.

I case it would happen I guess the game would be adjourned by the arbiters. The entire round would not be delayed/cancelled, but the result would be considered to be a draw for pairing purposes only. See General handling rules for Swiss Tournaments, point D.1, and Laws of Chess, point E.1.a.

From Laws of Chess

> If a game is not finished at the end of the time prescribed for play, the arbiter shall require the player having the move to ‘seal’ that move. The player must write his move in unambiguous notation on his scoresheet, put his scoresheet and that of his opponent in an envelope, seal the envelope and only then stop the chess clock. Until he has stopped the chess clock the player retains the right to change his sealed move. If, after being told by the arbiter to seal his move, the player makes a move on the chessboard he must write that same move on his scoresheet as his sealed move.

from General handling rules for Swiss Tournaments

> Adjourned games are considered draws for pairing purposes only.

Update: I've found a real example in a Catalan tournament (Masdenverge). You can read tournament rules here: http://www.escacsmasdenverge.com/. It was an U-2200 tournament (to allow a 60+30 time control) and three rounds per day were scheduled. See the note where this possible problem is mentioned:

> NOTA: Si una partida s'allargara en excés, superant l'hora prevista per a l'inici de la següent ronda, l'àrbitre principal podrà segons el seu criteri, emparellar amb el resultat provisional de taules, a l'efecte de que els altres participants puguen jugar la ronda següent. Quedaran ajornades les partides dels jugadors que estiguen jugant la ronda anterior i una vegada finalitzada, s'unixen a la ronda.

A free English translation:

> If a game lasts for too long, exceeding the scheduled time for the start of the next round, the main arbiter may at his discretion, proceed to the pairing with the interim result of a draw, to the effect that the other players can play the next round. Games of the player who are still playing the previous round will be delayed and once these games end they'll join the current round.

As you can see in this case the draw for pairing purposes rule is used, but games are not adjourned but the players will continue to the end, and then they'll join the next round.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Well, a game that lasts more than 8 hours would make everyone involved in the tournament tired and angry. Under the assumption of today's normal time controls with 90 minutes for 40 moves followed by 30 additional minutes for the rest of the game and 30 seconds increment per move starting from move one.

It is an impressive effort to reach 24 hours of gameplay. The 50-move rule will be crucial. Most probably, 49 moves would be made with the pieces, followed by pushing one pawn one step forward and thereafter repeating the cycle. Both players would have to be in agreement and collaborate to reach this epic achievement. A slight complication is that you have to write down your move, which decreases your increment to perhaps 25 seconds and also makes your hand(s) more tired.

My guess is that the arbiter would declare a draw, 1-0, 0-1 or perhaps even 0-0 if possible, after about 8 hours of play. The grumpy arbiter would thereafter most probably try to disqualify both players from the tournament.

Since such situations are so rare, FIDE will probably make a decision based on the particular situation in question, without creating new rules or changing the existing ones.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> Technically it is possible for a game to last more than 24 hours

Not true in a game where both players are trying to win or draw. You haven't done your sums.

> In an endgame, the player with the advantage will just need to be careful of the fifty-move rule

In 20 hours of 30 second increment play at least 1200 moves have to be played. That is at least 24 times when there is a flurry of captures or pawn moves. I say "flurry" because generally speaking when there is a capture there is also a recapture. There are only 16 pieces and 16 pawns on the board when the game starts and after the first 4 hours of play a lot of them will be gone.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Would the entire round be delayed for everyone participating in the event?

No, if the game duration may exceed a reasonable amount of time (I am not talking about 24 hours, but lets say 12 hours or so) then the game is adjourned and any tournament director would plan a special day for adjourned games. This works perfectly in case of so called Round-robin system tournament. In case if the tournament is played by Swiss system rules then it is simply reasonable to have shorter time limits per game, so all games will end by the end of the next round.

Would the arbiters simply decide to end the problematic game, considering it as a draw?

No, this could never happen! The game can be considered a draw in case, for example one side loses on time while the other side doesn't have sufficient material to mate, i.e. two knights only, etc)

Would the FIDE President need to add a new rule to prevent this kind of situation from happening again?

There is no way to regulate all possible outcomes of bad tournament planning. It's not FIDE responsibility.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I don't think a player in a tournament with a 90 minute base time and 30 second increments would have an advantage in dragging on a game more than 24 hours. The only way a game could drag on that long is if they have a lot of pawns and very rarely move one forward. If a player can force a game to drag on that long if they haven't won yet, they can probably also force one of their pawns to promote into a queen and then force a win in way fewer moves. That will probably not however stop a player from forcing a game to drag on more than 5 hours in the hope of winning. For that reason, they could add in the extra rule for everybody that if a game doesn't end after 5 hours, it's declared a draw to prevent that problem in the future, and invent a clock that tells them how much time there's left until the game ends. Maybe that rule could even allow the 50 move rule to be taken out of those tournaments without the game dragging on too long, allowing a player to win when they have a forced win in more than 50 moves.

---
Tags: tournament, time-control, time-management
---


title: Fastest Way to Amass Experience

text:
# Question
Title: Fastest Way to Amass Experience
I want to amass as much Chess experience as I can, by playing several games against my phone/laptop AI.
I'm not a good player, and would estimate my ELO is \<1500.
I am wondering if I would level up fastest by playing against an AI closer to my level, or by playing against my AI at the highest level.
I've known the rules of chess for several years and been playing casually — I want to start playing seriously.
What I most desire, is experience — and the intuition that comes with.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Playing against machines will definitely help you get better at playing against machines. If that's the goal, go for it.

If you want to get better at Chess, you need to play several slow serious games against human opponents (both slightly above and below your skill level) on a regular basis.

The metaphor here is picking up a "learn some language in 6 months" interactive audio/software course that you do solo vs. being thrown into a village where that is all that people speak and your ability to survive and grow is acquired organically by making mistakes, getting critiqued with regular feedback loops as well as the social osmosis that is typical of increasing competency in any learning fraternity.

Even the mighty *self-taught* Fischer visited the clubs and competed against the world's finest to get from **good** to **better**.

There's also an aspect of gamesmanship, learning how to use the clock under pressure, deceptive stratagems and sub-optimum "play the man" ideas like gambits that you will NEVER pick up when practicing against a machine. Gaining **experience** and **intuition** in a very short window of time is best achieved with a human feedback loop to help you constantly identify your weaknesses and recommend avenues of play (openings, endings, middlegame strategy) that you are clearly missing.

With that being said, seeking out human opponents at any time control is fairly easy these days via your laptop/tablet/mobile device. For instance sites like Chess.com, Playchess and the ICC provide mobile-friendly apps that you can certainly use to get some chess in at all times of the day against human opposition.

For your kind of ambition though, start hitting your local clubs and find (and in some cases, **pay**) a strong mentor to review each and every slow game you play as often as possible.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The IM (International Master) Jeremy Silman, at the age of 14, "studied master games until he was slaphappy and drooling." (He also mentions eating a lot of ice cream.)

Luckily, there's an easier way for beginners.

**Read Silman's books:**

*Re-assess your chess: 3rd edition*

*The Amateur's mind*

*Complete Endgame Course*

*Re-assess your chess (workbook)*

*Chess Fundamentals* (By Capablanca - recommended but advanced reading - meant to be read ONLY after finishing the above four)

Reading the four Silman books for an hour a day (do the included exercises) and playing ONE 60/5 game on Sunday will net at least 36 hours a week and satisfy the necessary practice to play ratio.

Your practice to play ratio must be 20:1. You cannot play well if you don't practice. I don't mean go and play 20 30-minute games for one tournament game; no. I mean devote 400 hours of reading and strategy, positional, and tactical exercises for 20 hours of games.

Surely enough, you will win. The 2000's+ didn't get there on sheer luck. The 1500's and below only stay there because they don't put in the necessary work or are focusing on the wrong information.

It should take you ten weeks to finish the four Silman books and unofficially land you (at least) at the 1800 level.

By the way, **playing four 15/5 games is not the same as playing one 60/5 game.** You have at most enough time to consider and ponder seriously upon one move in the former; four or five in the latter. I no longer play 15/5's, even though they are very fun! They just don't get me any better.

*I am not selling anything and/or do not receive commissions for selling Silman's books.*

---
Tags: engines, learning, training
---


title: Why is Qe2 stronger in this position?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is Qe2 stronger in this position?
I just finished reading Logical Chess Move by Move (should have read it before) and I just started with the Classic *My System*. I'm still on the beginners' part that talks about the center (can't wait to get to the positional chapter) and Nimzowitsch posts a game in which he says Qe2 is stronger. Here is the game.

```
 [FEN ""]
 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Nc3 Qe6 5.fxe5 Qxe5 6.Be2

```

Nimzowitsch says that in the arising position Qe2 is stronger, why? Because we would have a development advantage of one piece? That doesn't look too of an advantage to me? (Note that Qe2 is referring to white's 6th move.)

# Answer
`Be2` makes no threat, leaves `g2` undefended, and seals in the Queen. Black has `Bg4` which prevents `6... Bg4 7.Nf3 Bxf3 8.gxf3` as this leaves White with crummy pawns.

Black also has `Be7` followed by `Bh4`, exploiting White's weak black Kingside squares.

Finally, Black also can move either Knight. Black simply has no problems.
> 8 votes

# Answer
I think that Nimzowitsch wanted to demonstrate that after `6. Qe2`, if black exchanges the queens with `6... Qxe2+`, he will have **no development** because the only piece that was developed was the queen.

That is good for white since his advantage (the *difference* between black and white) in development has grown bigger.

If black doesn't exchange queens, he will have to protect his lady (for example with `6... Nc6`), but then white is winning more time anyway with `7. Nf3`.

---

I understand that `6. Be2` is more natural, because you want to keep queens on the board for an attack on the undeveloped black's army.

It's not that easy, thought, mainly because of the unpleasant move `6... Bg4`.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: Why does KQ vs. KP (flank pawn) on 7th draw?
Silman mentions that King and Queen vs. King and pawn on the 7th rank wins, except when it's a flank or rook pawn (and the king is far away from the action, i.e. 6th rank).

The rook pawn case is clear; black king on h1 gets stalemating chances with its pawn on h2.

But the c-pawn and f-pawn case isn't clear to me. Why does King and Queen vs. King and flank pawn on the 7th rank draw?

# Answer
For a similar reason, black also gets stalemating chances:

```
[FEN "8/8/1K6/8/5Q2/8/5p2/6k1 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.Qg3+ Kh1! 2.Qf3 Kg1 3.Qg3+ Kh1 4.Qd3 Kg1 5.Qg3+ Kh1 6.Qxf2 {stalemate}

```

There are some ways to win if the king is close, but if it's far away as you say then white can't make progress -- he can't take the pawn without stalemating black.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: endgame, theory
---


# Question
Title: Simultaneously managing attack and defense
I am an amateur chess player. I have the knowledge of pawn structure, development of the pieces and control of the center in the opening. After that my midgame rationale is attacking the weak pieces, and if I am under an attack, focus on defense. This has failed to work among much stronger opponents of late. How would I change my rationale so that I can manage defense and attack at the same time?

# Answer
*Defense* isn't something that one does; it is not a tactic. Instead, *defense* happens when one has ceded the initiative to the opponent. One spends moves patching holes versus attacking the opponent's weaknesses.

(Of course at some point "tactics" and "retaining the initiative" blur. Some fine attacking moves also defend, and some defensive moves free other pieces to attack. It can be a maelstrom when it comes to specifics.)

So consider reading on *tempo* and *initiative*.
> 5 votes

# Answer
It is interesting to see that you don't mention in your post, while you did tag your question with it. Because, at the level you're playing, 99% of the games are decided by tactics. Practice more tactics, and you will advance quickly, especially if you know the basics of defense/offense.
> 4 votes

# Answer
You have a "Chess Planning" and "Thinking Process" problem.

Depending on your rating, I would recommend:

**Reassess Your Chess** \- Jeremy Silman. Simple, to the point, written for \<1800's.

Something with a little more substance:

**Find the Right Plan with Anatoly Karpov (Batsford Chess)** \- Karpov, Anatoly

Me personally, I prefer Karpov's book, and tend towards his thinking process methodology. Having the weight of GM and World Champion behind is justified in the content.
> 3 votes

# Answer
As said it's all about initiative : you have it when you play with white, and the trick is to not lose it, while when you're black, you have to defend in a large part while trying to balance, steal the initiative or overturn your opponent's attacks (and some openings have been developed following this philosophy)

personally, when I lose the initiative and have to defend, I always look for a counter (a move that while defending can represent a threat, or a refutation to my opponent's attacking move by playing a stronger attacking move, example : he's threatening my bishop, I threaten his Queen)

Anyway, the better way is to never lose a tempo and let the initiative slip, but for that you have to make a well prepared attack, so that it will never let your opponent rest !

You have to study some great masters' games and see how they deploy their attacking plans which don't allow a retort.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I don't think there are any specific rules for that. One must follow the greatest games played by the masters, what they did in what situation.

I can share one of my favorite matches. Hope you'll learn something about your query. Strong combination between pieces is always a key.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Hard to help you if I do not know you chess rating.

On level 1000-1600 it is really enough to seek weak points and attack - whatever if you want play better it is not enough at all - solve 2k of chess puzzles :)

On level 1600-1800 it is enough to manage tempo - whatever it is not enough to play better solve 5k puzzle and study some grand master games - try understand cooperation :)

To play 1800+ you need understand position cooperation and powers of influence and known much more about openings and endings together with middle game. It will come that you will understand much more relations between pieces and positions and see what you never seen before on the same board.

It is long way to understand chess - you learn 20% what is probably triple times more than others :)
> 1 votes

# Answer
You are asking what to do, if you are not sure whether to attack or defend.

First point, Never commit to an attack until you have some kind of advantage to base it on. If you dont yet have an advantage, there is no magic way to conjure one up out of nowhere.

The key to both attack and defence is mobility. Your pieces should be able to go wherever they need to. In games between top players it may seem like nothing happens for a long time, but both players are manoeuvring to make their pieces mobile. As a rule of thumb, try to ensure the each piece stands on a good square, and also has a good square to move to.

So what is a good square? It will take you a lifetime to answer that question
> 1 votes

# Answer
"Attack the weak pieces, and if I am under attack, focus on defense."

Heads up: There are positions where neither side is attacking or defending.

(In these cases, you are supposed to take advantage of an imbalance.)
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy, tactics
---


title: Three-fold repetition and null move

text:
# Question
Title: Three-fold repetition and null move
Added transposition table (this was tested alone and worked as expected), three fold repetition and null move pruning in my engine and wins more games but some of them end with three fold repetition even in win positions, played against the previous version

I keep a table history to save the current state of the board before making the move, to save the current zobrist key, move, en passant and castling

In make null function I just hash the en passant if exists, switch side, hash it and increment the fiftymove counter

To check for repetitions I do this:

```
int i;
for (i = 4; i <= board->fiifty_move; i += 2) {
    if (board->zkey == board->history[board->ply - i].zkey) {
        return true;
    }
}

```

The question is when checking for repetition it will check also for null move positions, is that correct? If a null move is repeated can we take that as a move even that null move it just switching sides?

I've seen engines that has a array like: `hist_rep[index++].zkey = curr_zkey;` that is only to check for repetitions and the array is not filled in the make null move function

Others engines has a counter inside the repetition function to check if the position has been repeated before more than one time

```
for (...) {
    if (zkey[i] == curr_zkey) ++rep;
    if (rep == 2) return true;
}

```

What is the correct way?

# Answer
No. You **shouldn't** count null-move in repetitions because:

* Null-move is fake
* Null-move artificially creates a repetition when there is none

Your implementation is correct, but you might want to exclude null-move. Let's take a look at Stockfish:

> https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/src/position.cpp

```
bool Position::is_draw(int ply) const {

  if (st->rule50 > 99 && (!checkers() || MoveList<LEGAL>(*this).size()))
      return true;

  int end = std::min(st->rule50, st->pliesFromNull);

  if (end < 4)
    return false;

  StateInfo* stp = st->previous->previous;
  int cnt = 0;

  for (int i = 4; i <= end; i += 2)
  {
      stp = stp->previous->previous;

      // At root position ply is 1, so return a draw score if a position
      // repeats once earlier but after or at the root, or repeats twice
      // strictly before the root.
      if (   stp->key == st->key
          && ++cnt + (ply - i > 0) == 2)
          return true;
  }

  return false;
}

```

You already have `st->rule50` in your code (`board->fifty-move`) but you don't have `st->pliesFromNull`.

Let's check what Stockfish author said about `pilesFromNull`.

> http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?start=0&t=35052&topic\_view=flat&sid=46a5561bcd0c4d36796c0fbfe5158079

By Joona Kiiski (2010):

```
They are already excluded, note the use of st->pliesFromNull:

Null moves can artificially create a repetition
draw where instead there is no one.

So use a second counter to reset history after a null move.

```

You see, if the strongest engine in the world does it you have no reason for not doing it.

If you check the code carefully, the first time when you do a null-move `pliesFromNull` is 0.

```
void Position::do_null_move(StateInfo& newSt) {
    ....
    st->pliesFromNull = 0;
}

```

later the engine increments the counter in `do_move`:

```
++st->pliesFromNull;

```
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines, programming, transpositions, threefold-repetition
---


title: Sicilian defense - beginner

text:
# Question
Title: Sicilian defense - beginner
I have started to study the Sicilian defense (at a beginners level), and I came across a situation where I don't know how to proceed...

1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 d6
3. d3

I know that it is probably not the best thing for white to do, but nevertheless, how does black continue? My fear is the white Knight coming to f7...

# Answer
Put in the most simple way, white's classical goal with 1.e4 is to continue 2.d4, occupying the center.

Black plays the Sicilian so that he can, if white continues expanding in the center with d2-d4, exchange his c-pawn for white's d-pawn and gain a 2 vs 1 pawns in the center advantage. In the meantime he doesn't develop his pieces, so there's a disadvantage to that approach, but that's a basic idea of the Sicilian.

White has three fundamental ways to deal with the Sicilian: if he believes black's disadvantage in development is more important than the center pawns, he can go for d2-d4 (usually with Nf3 first), fast development and attack. This leads to exciting games and is the traditional most popular way to deal with the Sicilian.

Two, he can take the Sicilian seriously and still continue with his original idea by playing 2.c3. This 'cancels' 1...c5 because white will just take back on d4 if the pawns are exchanged.

Three, white can decide against d2-d4 for now and look for other ways. Usually this involves putting the pawn on d3 (because leaving it on d2 is awkward). Usually play is slow and both sides' pieces don't immediately touch each other in the opening moves, so a great variety of ways to continue are possible. Your line belongs here.

Combining 2.Nf3 and 3.d3 is a bit odd, in that white has already made some slight concessions -- he can't play with an early f2-f4, and the bishop is locked in -- while black hasn't had to do anything to achieve that. By itself that doesn't mean much, as there are still good ways to continue available, but he's made himself a bit predictable.

Most likely, white will put the bishop on g2 and castle short; this is called the **King's Indian Attack**, because it mirrors black's setup in the King's Indian Defence.

It's hard to give concrete lines (because so much is possible), but I'd place a pawn on e5 (3...e5 or 3...Nc6 and 4...e5) because it shuts down white's d3-d4 for the foreseeable future, f2-f4 is not possible, and an important plan for white is usually to play e4-e5, but you prevent that. Keep the option of playing your white squared bishop to g4 open.

The so-called 'Botvinnik setup' with pawns c5-d6-e5, Nc6, Ne7, and a bishop on g7 seems like an idea.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Here

http://www.caissa.com/chess-openings/sicilian-defense.php

You will find lines for the Sicilian including explanations.

However I advise you to stick with the main line (which is the Classical Sicilian line, the Open Sicilian line is also one of the "main" lines. Use whichever you like since you're still learning)... The Sicilian might get too hard to play at a beginner stage if you play one of the other lines. But you have them right there if you are interested :)

Hope I helped

---

However as far as I know, there are no actual lines of the sicilian with d3 in such an early stage. It blocks the development of the white bishop and overall is played too early. (I could be wrong however, since I haven't finished my study of the sicilian, if there IS a line for it the others might have an answer)

As to HOW to continue in THAT particular line that you just said Nc6 for black is most likely the best move. It keeps control of vital squares in the center and your pawn structure is good.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The normal way for white to play the Sicilian is to push d4 early which after the exchange cxd4 will lead to very interesting **open and tactical positions**.

There is a **large body of theory** related to the Sicilian and in many lines not knowing this theory can be **very risky** for both sides.

A white player who is not very familiar with the Sicilian or who prefers more closed positions might very well play a King's Indian Attack (KIA) like setup with pawns on d3, e4, g3, knight on f3 and bishop on g2. The typical idea for white (if black castle's kingside) is to go for a pawn storm with f4, g4... This is very easy to play for white and fairly independent on what black does. So it does not require any knowledge of theory. Personally I do use this against some types of the Sicilians.

In my opinion, 3. d3 is a normal move, perhaps not the most demanding, but nothing wrong with it. Assuming white goes for a King's Indian Attack setup, black can chose for instance between:

* a setup like in the dragon with fianchettoed bishop on g7, and perhaps a pawn storm on the queenside, as black you can use your control of the dark squares (d4, e5) where you might want to place a knight at some point.
* pushing d5 (e.g. after playing e6), which threatens to open the center and often leads to simplification and equal positions in the KIA. Also this helps against potential pawn storms/kingside attacks. Since you already played 2. ... d6, you would lose a tempo playing d5, so it might be wise to postpone the move d5 for later and first continue with normal development, with, e.g. Nc6, Nf6, e6, Be7, 0-0,.... and only then think of d5
> 1 votes

# Answer
When you are a beginner it is good and important that you concentrate a good deal of Chess games of Fischer , Kasparov , Anand and many others .

Sicilian is a huge subject and mastery takes a lifetime to learn . There are many different variations and Patterns which requires a Strategic understanding . You must first classify differently and then choose which one would be the best for you .

Classifications below .

1. Sicilian Najdorf

1.a) Scheveningen 1.b) Sozin 1.c) English 1.d) Poison Pawn

Many more ......

2. Sicilian Kan
3. Sicilian Richter Rauzer
4. Sicilian Dragon

There are many more which I cannot mention all . Important is you need to have an attitude where you can do brutal counterattack , exchange Sacrifice, understand the c-file play and gain initiative by giving by material .
> 0 votes

---
Tags: sicilian-defense, beginner
---


title: Which Book should I choose

text:
# Question
Title: Which Book should I choose
After watching a good deal of annotated games of Mikhail Tal on YouTube, I've finally decided to go in deeper by the means of 3 of his most famous books

* `Life and Games of Mikhail Tal`
* `Study Chess with Tal`
* `Attack with Tal`

Even after having bought all the three books, I don't know which one is the best...and sometimes the exercises become quite monotonous...what is your opinion?

# Answer
> 1 votes
It depends on what you are looking for.

Personally I like *Attack with Mikhail Tal* best because it is really an excellent textbook (or guide, see the introduction) on how to play attacking chess. So if you are looking to improve your own game, this is the book I would recommend.

If on the other hand you are more interested in Tal himself and his career, his personality and style, then you should definitely go for *The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal*, which has much more comprehensive coverage of those aspects.

---
Tags: books, tal
---


# Question
Title: Is it too late to be a chess grandmaster at age 14?
I'm 14 and I started playing chess from 7 or 8 years ago, but now, I didn't think about being a grandmaster. So what should I do? Should I quit?

# Answer
> 3 votes
If you're 14 and not a grandmaster yet, it only means that you probably will not become a contender for the world chess championship. But most lesser goals should be achievable, and "only" wishing to become a grandmaster is definitely not out of reach for someone your age.

What it all boils down to is whether you're determined enough to put in the work that is required to become a grandmaster at chess. Are you prepared to play much, and make systematic study of chess a part of your daily life? Depending on your talent and other circumstances in your life it may or may not be difficult to reach your goals, but it's unwise to assume it will be a breeze. Assume that you will have to work hard for a relatively long time, otherwise you will only become disappointed.

So, trying to become a grandmaster is a big committment if you're not already close to achieving the title, and therefore I think it would be wise if you tried to figure out why it is so important for you to become one? Why on earth would you need to stop playing chess just because you couldn't become a grandmaster? The overwhelming majority of chess players in the world aren't even close to that level of play, and most of us don't even care! I believe that most people play chess because they think it's fun, and not because they want to become a grandmaster.

Maybe the above paragraph is misguided, and you simply wonder whether you should quit trying to become a grandmaster, and not whether you should quit chess altogheter. In that case, please ignore it.

# Answer
> 3 votes
You need a few things to become a gm.

1) A commitment to improving and a never give up attitude. For example if you trained 5 hours a day for 5 months straight, then played in a tournament and had your rating go down 50 points that couldn't phase you. You would just have to trust in hard work, continue your training and then 2 months later you'd suddenly win a tournament and gain 100 points.

2) A good training plan. There are certain phases of the game and you'd need to make sure you were training at each phase in the correct order, with the best training materials possible, and you'd need to be very focused during the training. You'd also need a good eye for your own weaknesses and come up with methods to overcome them. If you trained blitz tactics 2 hours a day and found in tournaments you were moving too fast and not calculating deeply enough, you may start studying tactics without any time limit attached, and only move when you think you truly see the answer and you have fully explored the position.

3) Stamina. Playing 7 6-hour high pressure chess games over three days can be grueling. Getting inshape, eating healthy, exercising between rounds, and getting 7-9 hours of sleep everyday can help insure you're going strong by the time round 6 and 7 roll around.

4) Get some feedback from strong players on your games. Whether the local chess clubs top player is willing to help mentor you, or you find yourself a coach, it helps to have someone else looking at your games and having them find weaknesses you can improve at.

For general study I'd suggest always training tactics 1 hour everyday, reviewing a master game a day, reading a book on chess strategy everyday, reading an hour of an endgame book each day, and playing and reviewing a long classical game each day.

If you are ready to commit to becoming a top player and are pumped up to be a master yourself following a tough training schedule, I think you have a bright future in chess.

The masters who don't become gms generally quit training and don't believe they can do it. You have to believe, go for it, never give up and train hard for it to have a chance at gm.

Gl!

# Answer
> 2 votes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice\_Ashley besides the fact that he is the first black GM he also became IM at the age of 27 and GM at the age of 34. So it is absolutely achievable.

# Answer
> 1 votes
## Yasser Seirawan didn't pick up a chess piece until he was 12. He reached the Candidates Matches twice.

He was World Junior Champion at 19 and for a decade was America's best hope to break the Soviet monopoly on the world championship. In fact - he did something that Fischer didn't accomplish until his last sanctioned match. He defeated a reigning world champion over the board. (Fischer had never beaten Spassky or his predecessors until his famous match.)

My best advice to you: read every book by Yasser Seirawan, and watch every one of his videos. Maybe it is because he learned the game at such a late age that he is indisputably among the greatest teachers of chess of all time.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Possible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye\_Jiangchuan

It's not easy though. But you still have lot of time, there are people who become GM's in the middle of their 30's (they don't start then of course, the point is you can still develop at that age).

---
Tags: learning, rating, psychology
---


# Question
Title: Has the Soviet movie "Grandmaster" ever been translated into English?
I am looking for audio or subtitle English translation of this 1973 movie by director Sergey Mikaelyan. Does anyone know if that is available anywhere?

# Answer
No, there are no translations that I have found.

IMDB only lists the Russian and Polish versions. Soviet Movies Online hasn't translated it.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: history, film
---


# Question
Title: Is there a forced mate/ winning advantage?
Recently I played a game in a High School league match as the top board. I played f4 followed by d5 (very standard). I played passively and waited out his attack and soon gained the momentum. At around the 25th move we progressed to this situation:

```
 [FEN "r5k1/p1q5/5rp1/2p1Np2/1p1n1P2/1P1PR3/P1P2Q2/1K2R3 w - - 0 1"]
 [Title "White to Move"]

```

It was my move and I saw mate in 3 with `Qh4/Rh1/Qh8++`.

So I played Qh4 attacking his rook and impending mate. He responded Qg7 which I feel was a strong defense.

That's when I saw my winning move from this position:

```
 [FEN "r5k1/p5q1/5rp1/2p1Np2/1p1n1P1Q/1P1PR3/P1P5/1K2R3 w - - 2 2"]
 [Title "White to Move"]

```

Nd7!

How does he respond without going down the exchange or significant material?

If - QxN

QxR down the exchange and threatening to take more.

He plays Rd6?

```
[FEN "r5k1/p2N2q1/3r2p1/2p2p2/1p1n1P1Q/1P1PR3/P1P5/1K2R3 w - - 4 3"]
[Title "White to Move"]

```

Re8+ now wins, right? There's a mate there for sure, but can he escape without losing his queen? If not the game?

```

     [FEN "r3R1k1/p2N2q1/3r2p1/2p2p2/1p1n1P1Q/1P1P4/P1P5/1K2R3 b - - 5 3"]
     [StartFlipped "0"]
     [Title "Black to Move"]

```

black resigns.

EDIT: After some analyizing I think after Nd7 Black has lost. I cant see any possible escape from an actual Mate. please correct me if I am wrong.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Congratulations on a fine win. I see you have dominated the center with your knight which is backed up by doubled rooks on an open file. Your king is in a safe position, compared to black's drafty King position. Black's queen is passive though not poorly placed. One of black's rooks is still in the box and is undefended. It's vulnerable. The other rook is also undefended and passive. But at least it is offering a feeble defense.

If you dilly-dallied, Black could move his knight to the awesome c3 square. So I am glad you did not do that. Also, if the pieces suddenly disappeared from the board, he would have a passed pawn on the f-file which could be fatal for you.

This position proves the adage, "If you find a good move, wait, and find a better move." White wins with Qh4. I'm sure you can win this game by force but I can't find a mate. It's amazing how resilient even crummy positions can be, if the losing player is willing to play until the bitter end.

This statement set off my danger alarm:

> QxR down the exchange and threatening to take more.

Being up the exchange is not a clear-cut win. You need to see the 'more' before assuming you're going to get the full point.

Qh4 is spot-on in that it forwards an agenda (exploit the drafty house) while hitting the lose rook. What's not to like? But what I think you have missed here is the wretched state of the g6 pawn. What if you double up on it with Qg2. Now you're threatening to denude the king even more, while hitting the lose liability, oops I mean rook, on a8. Because Black's rooks are lose, you can move with tempo. It's like getting free moves.

```

[FEN "r5k1/p1q5/5rp1/2p1Np2/1p1n1P2/1P1PR3/P1P2Q2/1K2R3 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qg2 Raf8 2. Nxg6 (2... a6?? 3.Ne7+ Kf7 4.Qd5+ looks_strong) Rxg6 3. Qxg6+ Qg7 4.Qd6

```

The `a6` move is a throw-away to show what can happen if Black plays poorly. It's what's coming if he does not take evasive action.

The main line sees you getting an exchange and a pawn. Super easy, too, and offers Black nothing in return. Now your queen dominates black's undefended queenside. The `c5` pawn will likely fall, leaving the Knight trapped. If he saves the Knight, you probably get the b4 pawn if you want it. NOW if the pieces drop off, you have connected passed pawns.

Black's king will never be safe with white's queen and rooks on the board. This means he must always defend against fast checkmates and getting pieces pinned against the king. He's going to be down material and defensive. Further, I don't see how black holds the c5 pawn and he's in danger of losing the knight which is hemmed in.

Edit - I like to run positions in Stockfish (a chess engine.) I let this one run. 20 minutes into its analysis, it switched black's first response from Raf8 to Nb5. That is, it advocates that black simply drop the rook on a8. `1. Qg2 Nb5 2. Qxa8.` wow. It rates the initial position as a crushing win for white. What is important to realize is that *the moves are there if you're clever enough to find them.*

# Answer
> 0 votes
You will win the queen. After your move re8 he has only 3 moves:

1. Interpose with Q which loses Q
2. Kf7 Re7 mate
3. Rxe8 Rxe8 and he either interposes his queen which loses his queen, or Kf7 and Qe7 mate. Good game, son!

# Answer
> 0 votes
Would it were true that **the moves are there if you're clever enough to find them.** Nobody would ever have to resign! Really, the moves are **usually** there **in a good position** if you are clever enough to find them, and the first task is to build that good position. In your game you did all the right things. You opened up his King position, dominated the open file, and permanently placed your Knight on an outpost. You must have had some cooperation from your opponent allowing all this, but credit to you anyway.

Your instinct then told you that there must be something decisive in this position, maybe even a mate, so you looked hard and came up with Nd7 which is a move that anyone would be pleased to spot, and which completely destroyed Black's position. But you are clearly developing a "killer instinct" and you are following the old advice "If you see a strong move look for a better one". In fact there wasn't anything better and your position was good enough that a good opponent should resign rather than hope for a silly mistake. Apparently he did not play quite badly enough to leave an immediate mate on.

Between strong players, forcing resignation feels almost as good as delivering mate, but you are correct to always be pressing for something extra. The satisfaction that you got from this nice finish should inspire you to try to create such positions against strong opponents.

---
Tags: checkmate, winning, material-balance
---


# Question
Title: Who is the youngest player to defeat a reigning World Chess Champion in a classical chess game?
A simple web search doesn't seem to readily give the answer to this question. Who is the youngest player to defeat a **reigning** World Chess Champion in a classical chess game?

# Answer
I'll start an answer just to get going as kmartin suggested. I'm sure it'll be superseded by other findings.

Carlsen beat Anand in Linares 2009 when he was 18 years and 3 month old.

(Other games that came to mind but narrowly miss out: Carlsen beating Topalov, 2007, Radjabov beating Kasparov, 2003)
> 7 votes

# Answer
If you don't mind including female chess players (I don't see any reason not to do so), I found that **Maia Chiburdanidze**, the seventh women's world chess champion, played a game in 1973 against the reigning champion **Nona Gaprindashvili**. The game was played in USSR Championship.

*She was only **12** (born in 1961) and defeated Gaprindashvili.*

Here is the link to the game: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1285155

---

Maia Chiburdanidze took over the crown from Nona Gaprindashvili in 1978, aged 17.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: history
---


# Question
Title: Best heuristic for memorizing positions in chess
Opening variations may be memorized by recalling what the objective behind every move is. For example, the first few moves of the Ruy Lopez fight to control e5.

In the middlegame, we may find ourselves thinking about a critical move - a move that requires tactical precision. Said tactic, if performed correctly, will yield an improved position. The tactic may reach several moves, usually six or seven and occasionally ten moves.

We would like to memorize a position in the middle of our visualized tactic as a "mental checkpoint". In case we don't like a move, say our eighth move, we can return to the position after the 5th move in our visualized tactic instead of the current position (move one).

1. What is a consistent method for creating the checkpoints?
2. Next, where in the tactic do we set the checkpoint? Do we set it every fourth move, do we only create one, or do we only create it in quiet circumstances?
3. If the method is not consistent, such as it does not work for all positions, list the exceptions.

# Answer
> 1 votes
This seems a bit theoretical/artificial to me.

I'd say, just do whatever works best for you. In the end all this should happen subconsciously without you thinking about any "methods".

> 1. What is a consistent method for creating the checkpoints?

Do you mean, how to memorize a position 5 moves from now? For any reasonably strong player this is not a problem (could be more problematic with positions very far in the future). You could use similar methods as in blindfold chess, e.g. you could combine groups of pieces (e.g. store the information of "fianchettoed bishop" instead of the position of each piece separately). Also for tactics very often only a small part of the board/limited number of pieces are relevant; so you could ignore irrelevant pieces.

> 2. Next, where in the tactic do we set the checkpoint?

Could make sense to create them at points where you have a number of alternative moves. Also, could create them at positions that are easy to remember.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I agree with `user1583209` that checkpoints should be created

> at points where you have a number of alternative moves

and that memorizing groups of pieces instead of each piece on it's own is probably the best method chess players know.

BUT:

I think that most players don't memorize positions (while calculating) at all because they don't need it. I can't agree with your statement:

> The tactic may reach several moves, **usually six or seven** and occasionally ten moves.

Usually you have to calculate shorter variations (between 2-4 moves).

Imagine that you need to calculate variation that is 4 moves long and after the second move there are lots of possibilities. It wouldn't be very efficient to memorize the position, since only two moves are played and you can easily replay the variation in your mind.

---

On the other hand it isn't bad thing if you try to improve yourself in visualization and memorizing visualized positions, since it improves your overall chess vision.

That means I'm not completely against this idea (if you use it for example as a *training method*), but I think it's *not so useful in practice*.

---
Tags: tactics
---


# Question
Title: In this QGD Exchange variation, how should white deal with 6 ...Bg4?
```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 Bg4!?

```

The Shredder Opening Database indicates no games played with this move, and my edition of John Watson's A Strategic Chess Opening Repertoire does not cover it either (unless I'm missing a transposition of some sort), so you would expect this move to be somewhat dubious.

Yet, according to my analysis with Stockfish, not only is this move OK for Black, but White struggles to maintain an advantage without either giving up his white squared bishop or allowing Black to get his white squared bishop into the game without concessions (both important themes in this opening for White, as I understand it).

What are the main ideas for White in this line? Can White punish Black for this bold early move?

Here are a few variations that I looked at with Stockfish - I focused on what I consider "natural" moves rather than radical ideas. Is there a line I'm missing that spoils this idea for Black?

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 Bg4
7. Nf3
( 7. Qb3 Nbd7 8. Bd3 ( 8. Bf4 O-O 9. Bd3 Nb6 10. Nge2 c6 11. O-O
{ Eval: 0.15. Black's white squared bishop is developed and he seems to
have solved most of his problems.}  )
8... c5 9. Bxf6 Nxf6 10. dxc5 O-O 11. Nge2 Bxc5 12. O-O d4
13. exd4 Bb6 14. Rac1 Rc8 15. h3 Be6
{ Eval: 0.29. A pawn down, but White's isolani seems like it would
be easy to recapture.}  )
( 7. Nge2 O-O ( 7... Nbd7 8. h3 Bf5 9. Ng3 Bg6 10. Bd3 Bxd3
11. Qxd3 { Eval: 0.25. Exchanging white squared bishops must
be a small concession from White.}  )
8. h3 Bxe2 9. Bxe2 Nbd7 10. O-O
{ Eval: 0.25. This seems like the most promising line for
White if you want a quiet position,
but Black seems reasonably well developed.}  )
7... c6 ( 7... O-O 8. Bd3 c6 9. O-O h6
{ Eval: 0.19. The Black white squared bishop is
nicely developed, and the king is safe.}  )
8. Bd3 O-O 9. Qb3 ( 9. Qc2 h6 10. h3 Bxf3 11. Bxf6 Bxf6 12. gxf3
{ Eval: 0.16. White has kingside attacking chances at the cost of a
messed up pawn structure and dubious king safety.}  )
( 9. h3 Bh5 10. Qb3 Bxf3 11. gxf3 Qc8 12. Rg1 { Eval: 0.37:
White attack on kingside looming, but with messed up pawn structure
and king safety issues.}  )
9... Bxf3 10. gxf3 { Eval: 0.34. This position seems double
edged - the White rook going to g1 looks dangerous, but the pawn
structure is messed up and I'm not sure about the White king's safety.}

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
There's probably no way to punish the move immediately. You'll have to play normal moves and hope that the bishop on `g4` will be useless.

The only try to punish black immediately is `7. f3`, but from the positional point of view it isn't a very nice move (although there might be a concrete justification) because you're weakening your king when you aren't developed. It would be very good if white was in time with `e4` move, but again since he isn't completely developed, I wouldn't risk it.

I like both of the logical queen moves (Qb3 and Qc2), especially `7. Qc2`, since you can play `Bd3` next, **fully exploiting the absence of black's bishop on b1-h7 diagonal**.

For example:

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 Bg4 7.Qc2 O-O {And now you can play either Bd3 or h3 and Bd3.} 8.Bd3 {The position looks good to me.} (8.h3 {Challenging the bishop, which has not so many good squares.} Bh5 9.Bd3)

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
Usually white's aim in this line is to play Qc2 anyway to take away the F5 square from the black bishop. Therefore I dont think Nf3 is a great move. Its better for white to play Qc2 or Qb3 which is also thematic since blacks white squares on the queenside are now weak due to absence of the bishop.

# Answer
> 2 votes
A key strategic idea for white in the exchange qgd is to build a big pawn center with f2-f3 and e3-e4. Perhaps white can accelerate his normal middlegame plans by playing f2-f3 here after ...Bg4? I haven't checked this line with an engine, so unfortunately I don't have a concrete line for you.

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


# Question
Title: What should the penalty be for a player leaving the playing venue?
FIDE Laws of Chess article 11.2 says:

> 11.2 The ‘playing venue’ is defined as the ‘playing area’, rest rooms, toilets, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter.
>
> The playing area is defined as the place where the games of a competition are played.
>
> Only with the permission of the arbiter can
>
> a. a player leave the playing venue
>
> b. the player having the move be allowed to leave the playing area

At a congress recently the following happened.

After the first 6 moves, which I played very slowly as I I had never seen the opening before, my opponent played his move and got up. I thought for 5 or 10 minutes, played my move and noticed that my opponent hadn't come back. I got up, had a look around the playing area and couldn't see him. I checked the toilets. They were empty. He wasn't there.

I went to see the arbiter. "I've lost my opponent" I said and explained the situation. "There are some toilets at the very far end of the building" she said. "He's probably gone there".

It didn't sound likely to me. I waited just inside the entrance to the playing area and 5 or 10 minutes later my opponent appeared. There had been insufficient time between rounds for him to get some food and so, rather than go immediately before the round started and lose 20 minutes or so (30 minute default time) he waited until part way through the game when the position was complicated and he would lose much less time.

Now that my opponent admitted leaving the playing venue during the game without the arbiter's permission I asked what she would do about it. "Well, he's ever such a nice chap. He's a charity worker, you know. So, of course he wouldn't cheat. He shouldn't really have done it but no harm done"

As an arbiter myself I think the explanation the arbiter gave in this case is a good one to justify not throwing my opponent out of the tournament altogether. It is not a good one to justify not defaulting him. And certainly not a good one for letting him off completely.

I've never had to deal with this when I have been the arbiter but for a "cheating related" violation like this I would automatically default the player and then consider whether I believed anything more untoward had happened before deciding whether to let him continue in the tournament or not.

Have any other arbiters had this situation before? If so what did you do? If not what would you do? There is no one prescribed penalty in the FIDE laws of chess as far as I know nor even specific guidance (please correct me if I'm wrong) and so it is left to the discretion of the arbiter.

# Answer
According to FIDE Handbook (12.9):

> Options available to the arbiter concerning penalties:
>
> 1. warning
> 2. increasing the remaining time of the opponent
> 3. reducing the remaining time of the offending player
> 4. increasing the points scored in the game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game
> 5. reducing the points scored in the game by the offending person
> 6. declaring the game to be lost by the offending player (the arbiter shall also decide the opponent’s score)
> 7. a fine announced in advance
> 8. expulsion from the competition

**I think that the arbiter should penalize the player anyway**, the question is which way. For me as an arbiter would be crucial the presence/absence of a mobile phone in player's pocket, bag etc. If the presence of his mobile phone was proven, I would declare the game to be lost for this player. Another problem is that arbiters *don't have the right for any inspections without permission*, the player has to agree...

If the presence of his mobile phone wasn't proven, **reducing the player's time** seems most adequate to me.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


# Question
Title: Using Stockfish in c# android (xamarin) app
I looked at this question

Implement a chess app for Android with Stockfish

but it doesn't seem to be answering what I want to ask. Maybe part of my question is topic for stack overflow forum, but anyway, I try it here first.

I'm doing android app in c# with xamarin and would like to use Stockfish for analysis and play functions. I already have c++ class working with PC version of engine (uci) and I would like to reuse some of the code like uci parsing. What steps should I do to run Stockfish in my c# app? Also I would like to ask if there are some conditions under which stockfish can/can't be used in android chess app.

# Answer
Reusing C++ classes in C# is annoying but straightforward. You'll need to know managed C++.

> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/855756/difference-between-native-and-managed-code

gives you what managed C++ is. It is a C++ technology invented by Microsoft, and it works as a layer between C# and unmanaged C++.

There is no reason why you can't do it in C#. You may want two background threads. The first one sends UCI commands to the engine, while the second thread asynchronously wait for engine results.

**EDIT**

Steps you should follow:

* Read what managed C++ is and why you would need it
* Make sure you can compile your unmanaged C++ code (regular C++). How to do it depends on your environment
* Make sure your can also compile managed C++ code.
* Make sure your C# code can call into managed C++
* Make sure your managed C++ code can call into unmanaged C++
* Now, you should be able to pass a PGN string from C# to your unmanaged C++ UCI parsing code

There is no reason why you can't use the Stockfish engine in Android.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, programming
---


title: Capablanca vs Lasker - 1921 WCC

text:
# Question
Title: Capablanca vs Lasker - 1921 WCC
> http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1241495

```
[White "Capablanca"]
[Black "Lasker"]
[FEN "2r2rk1/pb1n1ppp/Bp3q2/2p5/3P4/Q3PN2/PP3PPP/2R1K2R b K - 1 16"]

```

This is the 5ht Match game for the 1921 World Championship.

Lasker played 16...Bxf3 giving up the exchange.

Capablanca wrote:

> Dr. Lasker thought for over half an hour before deciding on this continuation. It is not only the best, but it shows at the same time the fine hand of the master. An ordinary player would never have thought of giving up the exchange in order to keep the initiative in this position, which was really the only reasonable way in which he could hope to draw the game.

Capablanca sounded like the position was already hopeless for Black ("hope to draw the game").

**Q:** Was 16...Bxf3 really Lasker's only reasonable move? Was Black's position really that bad? Couldn't he just take the bishop?

# Answer
After `16... Bxa6 17. Qxa6` the problem is that black has **no play**. His white-squared bishop is really important in the upcoming attack on the white king (this is the only play black can try), so if he exchanged it on a6, white would have a very comfortable position (mainly thanks to the attack on the black's weak queenside) and nothing to fear.

EDIT: I completely omitted the fact that black's pawn down. Of course that is somewhat important, too... :-)

You may oppose me with the fact that white managed to exchange these bishops anyway (see move `18. gxf3` later in the game), but at least black destroyed white's perfect pawn structure.

---

My second point is that you can't always take Capablanca for granted. He wasn't the most modest player in the world :-) and the fact that he already had known the result of the game when he was commenting it is also important. He was indeed one of the greatest players, but sometimes I find his comments biased.
> 4 votes

# Answer
What, then, after he takes the bishop? I can imagine Capablanca rolling in his grave right now.

Black will be down a pawn whereas white will keep pressure on the a6-c8 diagonal. White doesn't need to get greedy and take the a7 pawn after ...Nb8 (but he can if the knight just sits unprotected on d7).

After the bishop exchange, black's center is distended. He can't cause white to surrender the center because of the queen's pressure in that diagonal. Black is better off finding something else to do with his time.

Lastly, to paraphrase IM Jeremy Silman's thoughts on a similar problem (*Re-assess your chess, 3rd edition*, pp. 106):

> \[Black would\] have sacrificed the exchange. True, White enjoys an extra exchange. However, Black possesses an attack on White's weak kingside, enjoys an enemy king that is stuck in the center in the midgame of an open game (i.e., in front of semi-open files), and a bishop which assists with threats on the h1-a8 diagonal. **In this way Black has several favorable imbalances to play with.**
>
> "Whether this would have offset White's material advantage is a moot point - *never leave yourself with no favorable imbalances or no chances to create them.*"
>
> *If you do, you will surely* \[logically, because of no available counter-play\] *lose.*

Another quote on imbalances by the same author, same book pp. 225 (sorry, but I really have to drive the point home here)

> "Though we all can sacrifice material if we see a forced mate, many of us are less likely to part with our men if the return is just 'positional'. However, I must once again remind the student that **material is just an imbalance like pawn structure, space, and all the others.** Does it make sense to create one imbalance in your favor (material) while giving the opponent several others (space, better minor pieces, superior pawn structure, initiative, etc.)? Simple math gives us a clear answer.)

You can actually see what Capablanca had to say about the game (due to the centralized king in an open midgame, Black's rooks taking control of the d- and e- files, weakened pawn protection for the king, yada yada)

> The play here was extremely difficult. I probably did not find the best system of defense. I can not yet tell which was the best defense here, but it is my believe that with the best play White should win.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, world-championship, capablanca, lasker
---


title: Is there a name for non-pawn pieces?

text:
# Question
Title: Is there a name for non-pawn pieces?
I'm trying to describe chess to a person, and one of my sentences was:

*"Two rows, one with* ***pawns*** *and another with \[non-pawns\]"*

What would the collection of King, Queen, Bishops, Knights and Towers be called?

# Answer
As you probably know, sometimes the word "pieces" itself is used for that (you can say for example: white has two pieces and three pawns left). But that isn't very practical to use.

The only solution I can think of is using **light pieces, heavy pieces and a king**.

Not a one word, but at least it can be used in your sentence.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: terminology
---


# Question
Title: In the King's Indian Defense, is 9...Kh8 playable?
After elaborately detailing the imbalances, I've concluded that black needs to take advantage of his kingside space with ...f5. Therefore, the move ...Nd7 is completely justified (the author agrees with this).

However, I've also deduced that black's dark bishop is bad whereas white's has a powerful outlook on the diagonals c1-h6 and g1-a7 (after Be3, preparing c2-c4-c5). Therefore, ...Kh8 preparing ...Ng8, ...Bh6 is also justified. In case of f4, ...Bh6 is played anyway. Such a positional move is okay in a slow, ice cold position as this one.

Thus, I chose ...Kh8 as my second move. The author doesn't elaborate on that, only noting ...Nd7 or ...Ne8 as acceptably clearing the way for ...f5. Is ...Kh8 playable?

# Answer
I don't know what does "playable" mean for you, but... even though `9... Kh8` isn't a losing move, it's *just* **a waste of time**. Even a greater waste of time is the suggested plan with `Ng8` and `Bh6`.

Why? Because almost in every position there are more imbalances and you have to choose the most important. Let me explain it:

You've already listed two imbalances in your question: black's space on the kingside (it's actually the pawn structure that is pointing to kingside therefore creating some space for black) vs white's space on the queenside and a bad bishop on `g7` vs a better bishop on `c1`.

There may be other imbalances in this position, but they're irrelevant to us. Now you have to choose which of these two differences is of greater significance.

Now comes the "master" part. I think it is actually the ability to judge the importance of particular features, that every chess position has, that makes the difference between an amateur and a master. Fortunately I didn't have to come up with my own judgement of this position because it is a well known opening and I have some experience in it.

The reason why `9... Nd7` is better than `9... Kh8` is the fact that black's **play on kingside is more important than an exchange of your bad bishop**. In this position it is simple: You can't ignore a whole pawn structure because of only one piece (while I was writing this I realized that this is probably just an explicit rule that won't help you in any other position, but... OK).

The 3 moves you would have given white for the queenside attack can be fatal for you.

I also remember a quote but don't know who said it:

> In King's Indian (this line) white's attack is usually faster, but black's attack is usually stronger, because he attacks the king.

---

Another (concrete) reason against `9... Kh8` is that after `10. b4` (white starts his attack) white can simply play Bb2 next and no exchange will be possible for black.

---

The final judgement: *`9... Kh8` with the idea of `Ng8` and `Bh6` is a bad plan because black should concentrate his play on the white king.*
> 13 votes

# Answer
As mentioned by Dag Oskar Madsen, this is not a *slow, ice cold position*. Normally black goes for a pawn storm/attack on the kingside while white is trying to make something happen on the queen side. Whoever gets through first has a good chance to win.

You are right in your assessment that black can only play on the kingside in this position and that he should definitely push f5 to challenge the white center and to gain space on the kingside. After white protects the e4 pawn with f3 black continues to play against this new target on f3 with g6-g5-g4 (often played only after f5-f4).

White's plan is equally natural: Play against the pawn on d6 with c4-c5, exchange pawns on d6, put a rook on the c file, try to force black to play b6 or a6 which weakens the queenside and creates holes; and/or enter via c7.

Regarding the bishop on g7, it is not all that bad. For one it gives additional protection to the black king and also in some lines it goes to f8 where it protects the pawn on d6 and possibly can work against white playing c5. It is not clear whether exchanging the bishop via h6 is all that great for black. If you do, you are basically doing something like 4 moves just for exchanging a bishop on c1 which hasn't moved yet. Also you would end up with a knight on h6, which is not a good square.

> In case of f4

I don't think white would ever want to play f4 here. If he did, you could take on f4 which would open the long diagonal for your bishop, give your knights a nice square on e5 and leave white with a weak pawn on e4. Also it would make any queenside attack much more difficult for white.
> 4 votes

# Answer
In the given position I do agree that ..Kh8 etc is too slow, and White will quickly develop a Q-side initiative by preparing c5. However, I think that OP is to be commended for responding to the spirit of the question by looking for a positionally desirable exchange and then wondering how to achieve it. ..Kh8 may not be a good move, but I think that it indicates the development of a good thinking style. Always ask the first question, what do I want to do?, and the second question, can I actually do it? (Followed by the third question, is there anything else I want to do?).

ADDED In fact, the suggestion that there are only two moves that conform to the needs of the position is itself questionable. ..c5 has not been played nearly as often as the two Knight moves but it has been chosen by Benko, Larsen, Uhlmann and Larry Evans, who between them scored 2.5/4

Incidentally, IMO, b4 followed by Bb2 is not how White should respond. The puts his own Bishop where it "bites on granite" and leaves the Bh6 looking really good.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I have played and play this position a lot as white, and based on that I don't think your move is bad, though the plan of putting the bishop on h6 might be.

In general, black in this position withdraws the f-knight, pushes f7-f5 and then redeploys the knight to f6. If your extra move Kh8 entices white to play Be3 and Qd2, the extra move you gave white was used for the potentially bad move Qd2. After black block the position with f7-f5-f4, white often tries to stop black from pushing his g-pawn all the way to g4, but the queen move actually weakens that g4 control. Instead white should try Be3 and f3 in my opinion, so that your Bh6 can be answered with Bf2. Now the bishop on h6 blocks the black h-pawn, while the temporary denial of the c1 square to the white rook does not seem to me to fully compensate for that.

Personally, I would play Nd3 and c5 though. In the lines with Ne1-d3-f2, the bishop on c1 is more or less always in the way, usually moved to d2 to allow the rook access to c1, then later to e1 which blocks the rook at f1 in, making it just about impossible for the white king to ever consider running towards the queen side for safety. I'd be super happy to get it exchanged, especially if I get a bunch of free moves on top of it.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Successful attacks against the king without control of the center
Capablanca states that "control of the center is an essential condition for a successful attack against the king."

*Control of the center* doesn't mean we need dictatorship over all four central squares, as the following game (annotated by newshutz) shows:

```

[Event "London Chess Classic"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "2011.12.06"]
[Round "4"]
[White "V Anand"]
[Black "Hi Nakamura"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E97"]
[WhiteElo "2811"]
[BlackElo "2758"]
[Annotator "Fritz 12 (120s)"]
[PlyCount "98"]
[EventDate "2011.12.03"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2004.11.03"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7.
O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. b4 Ne8 10. c5 f5 11. Nd2 Nf6 12. a4 (12. cxd6 cxd6 13. Ba3
Bh6 14. exf5 gxf5 15. Nc4 Ng6 16. b5 Ne8 17. b6 a6 18. Bh5 Rf6 19. Bc1 Bxc1 20.
Rxc1 Nf4 21. Bxe8 Qxe8 22. Ne2 Ng6 23. f4 Bd7 24. fxe5 dxe5 25. Ng3 Qf8 26. Nh5
Rf7 {Postny,E (2591)-Nataf,I (2592) Evora 2006 0-1 (40)}) 12... g5 (12... Kh8
13. f3 Bh6 (13... g5 14. Nc4 g4 15. fxg4 dxc5 16. bxc5 fxe4 17. d6 cxd6 18. g5
Ne8 19. cxd6 Ng6 20. Nxe4 Be6 21. Ba3 Rf4 22. Rxf4 exf4 23. Rb1 b6 24. Bb2 Rc8
25. Bxg7+ Nxg7 26. Qd4 Rc5 27. Nxc5 {1-0 (27) Petran,P (2386)-Werner,D (2362)
Budapest 2004}) 14. Nc4 Bxc1 15. Qxc1 f4 16. a5 g5 17. b5 Ng6 18. b6 dxc5 19.
Nb5 Ne8 20. Nxa7 Bd7 21. Qb2 cxb6 22. axb6 Qf6 23. Nb5 Rb8 24. Nc7 h5 25. h3
Nd6 26. Rfc1 Nxc4 27. Rxc4 {Schussler,H (2420)-Ivarsson,J (2355) Stockholm
1980 1-0 (37)}) (12... f4 13. Nc4 Kh8 14. Ba3 Ne8 15. a5 Ng8 16. f3 Rf7 17. Qb3
Ngf6 18. b5 Nh5 19. Rfc1 dxc5 20. Bxc5 Nd6 21. b6 Nxc4 22. Bxc4 cxb6 23. axb6
a6 24. d6 Rf8 25. Nd5 Bd7 26. Nc7 Rb8 27. Ne6 {Lekic,D (2390)-Filipovic,M
(2121) Budva 2009 1-0 (34)}) (12... fxe4 13. Ndxe4 Nf5 14. Bg5 h6 15. Bxf6 Bxf6
16. Bg4 Bg7 17. b5 Rf7 18. c6 bxc6 19. bxc6 h5 20. Bh3 Ba6 21. Re1 Rb8 22. Rb1
Rxb1 23. Qxb1 Bh6 24. Nb5 Kg7 25. Ng3 Nxg3 26. hxg3 Bd2 27. Re4 {Gleizerov,E
(2405)-Temirbaev,S (2375) Uzhgorod 1988 1/2-1/2}) 13. Nc4 $146 ({fritz opening
book variations} 13. a5 f4 14. g4 (14. f3 Ng6 15. a6 b6 16. Bb5 g4 17. Bc6 Rb8
18. Nb5 g3 19. h3 Bxh3 20. gxh3 Qc8 21. Re1 Qxh3) 14... Ng6 15. f3 h5 16. h3
Rf7 17. Rf2 (17. Ba3 Bf8 18. Nc4 Rh7 19. Kg2 Be7 20. b5 Qf8) 17... Bf8 18. Ba3
Rh7 19. Nf1 Be7 20. Rc1) 13... h6 $6 {wastes a tempo as ...f4, f3 is going to
happen anyway.  IMHO,13...f4 was called for. OTOH,  Nakamura is a much better
player than I. The engines give 13...h6 as black's best move, but white has a
clear advantage} (13... f4 {gets back into a main line} 14. f3 Ng6 15. Ba3 Rf7
16. b5) (13... h6 14. f3 fxe4 15. fxe4 Ng6 16. Ba3 Nf4
17. Bf3 b6 18. cxd6 cxd6 19. Rc1 g4 20. Be2 h5 21. b5 Ne8 22. g3 Nh3+ 23. Kg2
Rxf1 24. Qxf1 Bh6 {0.58/25}) 14. f3 f4 15. Ba3 Ng6 16. b5 dxc5 17. Bxc5 Rf7 18.
a5 h5 19. b6 g4 20. Nb5 cxb6 21. axb6 g3 {Though the pawn chain pointed at
White's king looks threatening,  Nakamura is a long way from finishing his
kingside attack. Anand has a tremendous advantage, but needs to play actively
to bring the point home.} 22. Kh1 $2 {Not a losing move, but much too timid.
Anand was trying to secure his position by making sure that ...gxh2 did not
come with check. Preventing ...gxh3 with 22.h3 would allow the thematic ...
Bxh3 sacrifice that is usually bad for white.} (22. Qc2 {Does not look all
that active, but keeps all of White's threats in the air, and positions the
queen for invasion of Black's position along the c-file, frees the Rf1,
provides defensive support to g2, support for the Bc5, and support for a
knight posted on f5 (via d6, which is not a square the knight wants to rest on,
as it blocks the d-pawn, the Bc5, and the other knight.} a6 (22... gxh2+ 23.
Kh1 {is safe enough, as both black knights are far from g3. White might be
able to take on h2, but that requires a lot of calculation, that might be
better spent on other lines.}) 23. Ncd6 Rd7 24. Nf5) 22... Bf8 23. d6 {I think
this is premature. White can maintain control of d6, so the pawn is not going
to be blockaded, soon.} ({Fritz likes} 23. Rxa7 Rb8 24. Ncd6) 23... a6 24. Nc7
Rb8 25. Na5 Kh8 26. Bc4 Rg7 27. Ne6 Bxe6 28. Bxe6 gxh2 29. Nc4 $2 {Where is
this knight going? If Anand felt the need to shore up the d6 pawn, then I
think 29.Ra2 would have been better.} ({Fritz 12:} 29. Bh3 Nh7 30. Qd5 Nf6 31.
Qd3 Nh7 32. Nc4 Ng5 33. Bf5 Nf7 34. Qd5 Qf6 35. Qe6 Qg5 36. Ra2 {2.39/25})
29... Qe8 30. Bd5 $2 (30. Bh3 {would stifle any black attack on the kingside,
and keep control of c8}) 30... h4 31. Rf2 h3 32. gxh3 Rc8 33. Ra5 Nh4 34. Kxh2
Nd7 35. Bb4 Rg3 36. Qf1 Qh5 37. Ra3 a5 38. Be1 Rxc4 $1 {This exchange
sacrifice allows Nakamura to activate his dark square bishop and bring it into
the attack.} 39. Bxc4 Bxd6 40. Rxa5 Bc5 41. Be2 $2 (41. Rxc5 {returning the
exchange this way allows Anand to keep the Rf2} Nxc5 42. Be2 Ne6 43. Kh1 Ng2
44. Qxg2 Rxg2 45. Rxg2 {and things are pretty grim for white, but if he can
exchange off the rest of the pawns, he might be able to hold.}) 41... Bxb6 42.
Rb5 $2 Bd4 (42... Bxf2 $1 {I was screaming at my computer as I watched this
game live. It also would have worked on the previous move, but I did not see
it then.} 43. Bxf2 Nxf3+ 44. Bxf3 Qxf3) 43. Bd1 $2 (43. Rxb7 {would have
lessened the damage.}) 43... Bxf2 {finally, this move would have worked on move 41 and 42} 44. Bxf2 Nxf3+ 45. Bxf3 Qxf3 46.
Rb1 Rg6 47. Rxb7 Nf6 48. Rb8+ Kh7 49. Rb7+ Kh6 {White must give up material,
or the e4-pawn will fall and white cannot stop the black pawns.} (49... Kh6 50.
Rb6 (50. Rb8 Nxe4 51. Rb2 Rg3 52. Re2 Qd3 53. Bxg3 Nxg3 54. Qf2 Qxe2 55. Qxe2
Nxe2 56. Kg2 Nd4) 50... Ng4+ 51. hxg4 Rxb6) 0-1

```

In the above game, it is evident from move 20 onwards that white attains control of the central d5 square and more than half of the d-file. However, it is black's prevention of white's control over the e5 square (by blockading f2-f4 and keeping a pawn at e5) that grants black the necessary space to launch a kingside attack. In this sense white has no counterplay on the kingside. (Black also controls d4 with his e5 pawn).

What if black had no control of the center? It is widely accepted here that even a violent attack against the king is favored over control of the center. **How violent does black's attack have to be** when white unambiguously controls at least three of the four central squares?

# Answer
From the accepted answer you linked to:

> The center is the crossroads of the board. Controlling it will give you access to every other part of the board. At the same time, it will drive a wedge in the opponent's position that hampers communication between king and queen side.

This is a *general* rule which is widely applicable. However, in this case, the e- and f-pawns block White's access to the kingside. And communication between king- and queenside isn't really necessary for Black: all his action takes place on the kingside.

So basically this is just the exception that proves the rule.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I will tell you three rules that say when space isn't useful:

1. **All the general rules work until there's something concrete**. That means it is useless to have complete dominance over the center if you're losing because of a concrete line. Then the question isn't "How violent is the attack?" but "Is there a win?".
2. Center only creates space for your pieces that has to be used. If the space isn't used properly (your pieces have to be **well-placed**), center won't help you. It actually creates only more weaknesses.
3. Your pieces should be prepared for a fight **when your opponent starts the attack on the king**. Then you should act as quickly as possible. If you find yourself still developing or improving your pieces **while** your opponent's attack is already up and coming, it's too late. I think the game you mentioned is a good example of it. Anand was too slow in the center. He had a good-looking pawn on `d6`, good-looking center and an open c-file, but that was all he had. In the meantime Nakamura was already developing his play on the white's king.

It's hard to answer directly the question "How violent should be the attack?", because firstly in chess every position bears different amount of violence and secondly there's no unit for violence... :-)

---

I intentionally don't mention a weak center that could be destroyed in the cases above, because that's off topic here (we're talking about an attack on the king).
> 0 votes

# Answer
FYI:

I think you have to consider the time and place Capablanca made his comments - 1921. Although Capablanca was a brilliant player, Chess Strategy has come a long way in 96 years, and this exact position is dealt with on page 104 of John Watson's "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy", in the chapter titled "Rule-Independence", The Demise of the General Rule.

He goes on to discuss the modern idea by White of 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.f3 f5 11.g4!? and white attempts to stonewall black's dogmatic kingside attack with h4 and g5, and have a free hand on the queenside with a c5 break.

Just something to consider when you are in post mortem and cannot fathom how you got rolled by a plan that seemingly violated every dogma you have learned about the centre. I do cringe when I see "widely accepted" used to bolster some dogmatic saying from one of the old masters. In today's game, we look for ways to prove it wrong.

Good Luck and Good Chess!
> 0 votes

---
Tags: positional-play, center
---