# Question
Title: Why is Alex Dunne's book 'How to Be a Class A Player' so valuable?
I have been looking for this book for quite some time. I have his book, *"How to Become a Candidate Master"*, but have had trouble finding this one at a reasonable price. Currently on Amazon, used copies are listed at $75 on up to over $100, with one copy listed at $655.04. Other sites have similar price ranges. I recently tried bidding on a copy on E-bay, but was outbid at the last minute where it sold for $31.00. Why is this particular book so hard to find at an affordable price, say $25-30?

# Answer
> 3 votes
**Update 2023**: Since this question was asked in 2017 I see that New in Chess have published a book by Alex Dunne called *How to Become a Candidate Master: A Practical Guide to Take Your Chess to the Next Level*.

Since this was originally published in 1985 and the CM title wasn't introduced until 2002, this looks very much like the book you are searching for at a much more reasonable price, just with a more catchy title and probably with some updates..

> Why is Alex Dunne's book 'How to Be a Class A Player' so valuable?

Supply and Demand (Economics 101)

**EDIT**: Some additional clarification at the request of the OP.

Supply is pretty clear. It is fairly easy to measure although it can be a bit more tricky to get an accurate measure when it is very light.

Demand is a bit more nebulous. When there is enormous demand then it is also pretty clear. Where things become less clear is when demand becomes very light, when supply is also likely to be very light. Then you have actual, real demand and perceived or imagined demand.

Just as in chess between humans the clear logic of the situation can be distorted by emotion. It is not something you see in computer chess and you also see much less of it in big business. Suppose there is enormous demand for the latest Harry Potter book or Star Wars film. The companies controlling the product will try and match price and supply in a fairly mathematical way to maximize profit.

When supply and demand are very light then over emotional human beings make the decisions and things become a bit random.

Let me give some examples.

1. Cyril Northcote Parkinson, originator of Parkinson's Law, wrote an excellent book called "The Evolution of Political Thought". It has been out of print for decades. A few years ago somebody recommended it to me and I looked for it and found a cheap copy, \< $5, from a bookseller via Amazon. Why was the price so much lower than for your chess book? Well, Parkinson was right wing and so not politically correct. A PC person trying to set a price is likely to automatically value it less in financial terms because they value it less politically. They will put a lower price on it, a more realistic price. And now I've checked on Amazon again and, lo and behold! a publisher called "Forgotten Books" brought out a new edition just 2 days ago so they must see or anticipate fresh demand.
2. In 1978 I found some old chess magazines scattered over a couple of shelves in a second hand bookshop priced at 10p each. As far as I could see they were all different issues of the same English magazine, "Chess". I approached the shopkeeper and asked for a price for the job lot. "£8" he said and I bought them. When I got them home and sorted them out I found I had the first 12 years complete from 1935 to 1946, importantly covering the war years when stuff like paper was in short supply. I've occasionally thought of selling them. But there are two questions I find difficult to answer. How much could I get? and How much would I want? You would think I should be able to get $1200, $100 per year. If a collector really wanted them he might pay me $12000, $1000 per year. But I certainly wouldn't sell for $1200 and nor for $12000. I would sell for $120,000 but I doubt there are any buyers at that price. I'm sure there is a lower figure, somewhere between $12,000 and $120,000 , which I would accept if offered but the offer is extremely unlikely. I could put them on the market for $50,000 but that would just be a more extreme version of your Alex Dunne chess book on offer for \> $100.

You see where this is going? A big, professional business which bought the magazines for roughly $12 in 1978 would have no problem selling them for $1200 today. But I'm not a professional business. I'm a human being who is emotionally attached to these magazines. Supply is being distorted by emotion.

3. A large general store about 15 minutes walk from where I live has a charity table by the exit full of donated second hand books which you are encouraged to take in return for a suggested donation of 50p. A few months ago I came across the second part of John Masters' autobiography, The Road to Mandalay, which covers his progress during the second world war from lieutenant to colonel, and donated my 50p. I enjoyed it and so looked for parts 1 and 3 on Amazon. I found them, again for \< $5. Despite John Masters' politics being middle of the road (he would be a Liberal Democrat in the UK today) and being the author of the book Bhowani Junction which was turned into a classic film, I suspect he is seen in modern eyes as old fashioned and not politically correct and this "value" is reflected in the low price asked.

I doubt very much if the actual demand for Alex Dunne's "How to be a Class A Player" is really so much higher than for my books by Parkinson and Masters but the emotional beings setting the price have no good way of accurately measuring it. Their judgement has been clouded. They are not behaving rationally and their stock will remain unsold ... unless you win the lottery :-)

# Answer
> 2 votes
There are a few reasons why *How to be a class A player* is so valuable:

* The book is **out of print**, and is therefore rare
* The book takes a different approach of showing **amateur games** (class A vs. mostly class B players). This makes the material targeted to the audiance
* The book has been **well reviewed**, with 4.5 stars on 4 reviews on Amazon

---
Tags: books
---


# Question
Title: Marshall Defense 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 — transpositions
I know that the theoretical refutation of `1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6?!` is supposed to be `3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.Nf3`.

Perhaps Black doesn't fear the refutation because he intends a gambit such as `3.cxd5 c6?!` or `3.cxd5 c5?!`.

My question is not about the refutation or the gambits. My question is, what if White declines to capture on `d5`, and plays `3.Nf3 or 3.Nc3`? Does the game simply transpose into a normal line?

In that case, **has Black gained or lost anything because of his funny move order?**

If White is not going to play `3.cxd5`, does `2...Nf6` have any advantage over normal moves like `2...dxc4` or `2...e6` or `2...c6` or `2...c5`?

# Answer
**If you don't take on `d5`**, I think the only advantage black has gained is **flexibility**. That means he can choose his opening according to your move. But you can be almost 100% sure that the opening will be transposed into some traditional line so white can't be worse, for example:

* Slav Defence:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6?! 3. Nc3 (3. Nf3 c6) c6 {with the possibility of both Semi-Slav and Classical Slav Defence}

```
* Queen's Gambit:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6?! 3. Nc3 (3. Nf3 e6 (3... dxc4 {Queen's Gambit Accepted})) e6 (3... dxc4 {Queen's Gambit Accepted})

```
* Grünfeld Defence:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6?! 3. Nc3 g6

```

and there are probably many other transpositions...

---

In my opinion you have no reason not to play `3. cxd5`. The position after `3... Nxd5 4. e4` (I think this is logical and even better than `4. Nf3`) is very comfortable for white. You have a great center and black has to lose time again...
> 8 votes

# Answer
Another possible transposition after `3. Nc3`:

After `1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6` we arrive at a variation of the Chigorin Defense.

A particularly tricky line is the following.

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Chigorin Defense"]
[Startply "6"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 e5

```
> 5 votes

# Answer
Playing 2...Nf6 requires black's willingness to play 3.cxd5 c6 lines, because black really needs a pawn recapture on d5. If he is ok with that and is prepared schematically for the lines arising after white declines playing cxd5, then sure, why not. Chess, like life, sometimes does not have absolute answers, especially at sub-Master levels. It is more important to feel comfortable with the kinds of positions you get than to have an absolute answer. Chances are, you or your opponent will play sub-optimal very soon, so the hand-wringing comes without cause.
> 2 votes

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


# Question
Title: How does one prepare for a big chess tournament?
The Chicago Open is in four days. Assuming a player continues his daily regimen of reading chess books for a few hours and playing two, perhaps three slow games (60/5, at least) a week, what else should a player be doing?

Also, should a player stop this regimen before the tournament to "clear the mind"? If so, how many days before?

**Regarding openings**

I'm completely confident in the middle game. Everyone says that opening study should be reserved for when I'm higher rated (~2000).

This is true, because by following general strategy, I can transition into the middle game easily. With a plan, it's hard (if not impossible) to go wrong.

Why, then, does everyone advise to review openings before a tournament? (I have taken perhaps a brief look at the classical variation of the Ruy Lopez, but that's it.)

# Answer
Eat your carbs, get up at a time such that you'll be most alert during the games, maybe play a few blitz games to go through your opening repertoire. Move around according to your level of physical activity, because you're going to be sedantary for a long time.

Playing long, proper games is exhausting if you're really focused throughout, so you don't want to play any extra games just before the event. Reading chess books at a time so close to a tournament has its parallels with cramming before an exam: it pays off if you're faced with something relevant, but could cost some precious mental energy.

Be rested and stop training long enough so that you feel ready on the day of the event. For some, one day is enough, others may need over a week.

On an indirect note, fatigue usually starts to set in after 4 rounds or so; physical endurance is actually important here. While it's a little too late to address this now, if you find yourself making incredibly careless mistakes in the later rounds, you'd want to consider adding a physical part to your regime if you're serious about the game.
> 1 votes

# Answer
**The Chicago Open is in four days. Assuming a player continues his daily regimen of reading chess books for a few hours and playing two, perhaps three slow games (60/5, at least) a week, what else should a player be doing?** you should be playing more and studying less. Your study-to-play ratios are fragged. Acceptable ratios (suggested by "everyone") is somewhere around 4:1, maybe even as high as 50/50 if your opening play is solid. I know you advocated a 20:1 ratio in previous posts, and that is way too high. You need to play more, see more positions under fire.

**Also, should a player stop this regimen before the tournament to "clear the mind"? If so, how many days before?** What ever brings peace of mind and reaches your comfort level.

**Regarding openings I'm completely confident in the middle game. Everyone says that opening study should be reserved for when I'm higher rated (~2000). This is true, because by following general strategy, I can transition into the middle game easily. With a plan, it's hard (if not impossible) to go wrong. Why, then, does everyone advise to review openings before a tournament? (I have taken perhaps a brief look at the classical variation of the Ruy Lopez, but that's it.)**

*"You have to choose the systems you feel comfortable with and understand their principles." - Chess instructor*

Define "Everyone". you should know enough to play an opening *comfortably*. I suspect ***you are somewhere in the \[1600\] 1499 range (edit: based on the Chicago Open Entry List and your name, you are rated 1499)*** based on your previous questions. Studying openings before an event won't help all that much. Mental quietude and rest is much more valuable in my opinion. My name is not Everyone.

Good luck at the Open. We look forward to seeing some of your games here on Stack Exchange.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tournament, preparation
---


# Question
Title: What makes chess engines so good at chess?
Computers are thought to calculate every possible move. However, for eg. there are about 20 possible first moves and 20 possible responses to that and so by this logic the no. of positions after for eg.'n' moves is 20 ^(2n). This can become a huge number very fast. So I suspect that the computer may actually be using a huge precomputed opening database which may include all possible moves and responses to a huge depth - maybe around 30 moves or so. Their programming may also include a mechanism to look up transpositions so that it can transition from an unfamiliar opening to a familiar one. If it is indeed using a huge precomputed opening database, can this not be considered as cheating? Its like a bringing a chess book to a tournament.

# Answer
Engines do use opening and endgame databases to help their play but that is only a small part of their strength. The strength of the engines come from what they do while they don't have a database move. The strength of engines come basically from two factors: **evaluator** and **search**.

The evaluator assigns a value to a position so that the search will know which positions to favor. Most engines nowadays evaluate on the order of 1 million positions in a second, so the evaluator needs to be fast. The evaluator may take into account for example material, pawn structure, king safety, mobility, just to name a few features. In state of the art engines, the parameters of evaluator function (i.e. how much a feature affects the total evaluation of the position) are tuned using thousands and thousands of CPU hours of testing.

As you mention, the number of possible variations grows very rapidly. The average number of moves in a position is around 35, so the number of positions already after 6 half-moves is more than one billion, which is clearly infeasible.

A simple improvement is using the alpha-beta search, which is based on the observation that, for example, if you have calculated that move 34.A wins a pawn, and you know that after move 34.B Black can reply 34...C after which White does not win a pawn, you don't have to check other responses to 34.B because clearly you already know that 34.A is better than 34.B. If you have a good heuristic such that best moves are always searched first, this reduces the number of positions required to search depth d to sqrt(35^d) instead of 35^d which is a huge improvement. Transition tables reduce the search tree even more.

But this is not even close to what top chess engines really can achieve! Using some smart and smarter tricks to decide which nodes (=positions encountered during the search) are important and which are not, they search some parts of the search tree deeper and cut some parts early, which allows them to reach depth d for important variations often in even less than 2^d nodes. A quite technical list of possible ideas for selectivity is given in the Chess programming wiki.
> 9 votes

# Answer
> Why are computers so successful in chess?

First, they have opening database which means that you can not outplay them **unless you invent a stunning opening novelty.** High quality programs have databases that are **immune to transpositions.** So yes, it is like putting the opening encyclopaedia in front of you.

Second, they use endgame tablebases which means that their endgame technique **is godlike**, but this only works if they enter up to 6-men position. If they can not find the endgame on the board in their tablebase **you have a chance to win by outplaying it.**

Third, they calculate better. Why? Well look at the following simple example:

```
[fen "8/8/8/8/8/1P6/8/k1K5 w - - 0 1"]

```

This is **a rough demonstration** of how computer looks for the move:

He examines all the possible continuations, by "setting up" N boards-the N corresponds the number of available moves. Let us examine all lines for White here:

First candidate move:

```
[fen "8/8/8/8/8/1P6/8/k2K4 w - - 0 1"]

```

Second candidate move:

```
[fen "8/8/8/8/8/1P6/2K5/k7 w - - 0 1"]

```

Third candidate:

```
[fen "8/8/8/8/8/1P6/3K4/k7 w - - 0 1"]

```

Fourth candidate:

```
[fen "8/8/8/8/8/8/1P6/k1K5 w - - 0 1"]

```

Then, after "setting up" these positions in the memory he uses **evaluation function** to find the best move-in this case `g7+`.

After Black plays, the same process is repeated.

This method is very powerful because it allows them to find **very effective** `zwishenzug`s and they **always** find the winning tactics.

Quality of play depends on the quality of the evaluation function. Depth of variations also plays an important role here ( the number of moves computer can "foresee" ) but setting it high ensures again a godlike play. Although there is a **theoretical** chance to outperform it in calculation, in real life there is no chance to do it-not even grandmasters could have done it.

The **only weak spot** it has is for positional play since this part of chess is intuitive and can not be mechanized, so you would think you might have a chance there, but thanks to the progress of the opening theory you can always introduce dynamic play so there is no longer a chance to **completely** close the position and outmaneuver him like grandmasters did in the past.

> If it is indeed using a huge precomputed opening database, can this not be considered as cheating? Its like a bringing a chess book to a tournament.

They do not cheat, they just have better "memory" and stronger processing power.

You have your brain to store opening moves, they have a hard drive.

You have your brain to **visualize** the board and analyze the moves, they have RAM and CPU to do that.

The problem with human brain is **its failure to multitask.** You just can not use your brain efficiently to remember opening moves, endgame or middle-game principles, **visualize the board** and calculate **all** the possibilities ( this is the hardest part! ) and so on.

The way I see it, they are **better designed/organized** for using processing and memorizing resources.

Best regards.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Chess engines aren't necessarily superior in strategy. In fact, the strategy is programmed in. But they can SEE MORE of the possibilities on a chess board (board vision). They can see all the forks and all the pins after this move, the next move, and so on. The human mind isn't that thorough and organized, and will miss opportunities and threats. So it isn't necessarily superior in strategic play, the chess software is superior in board vision.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, engines, software, theory, endgame
---


title: .. c5 in Queens Gambit Declined

text:
# Question
Title: .. c5 in Queens Gambit Declined
I've been playing c5 as black in Queens Gambit Declined lately.

i.e.

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 c5

```

I just want to know, how bad an idea it is to play in this way? I saw someone play it in bullet game but I don't know when it's best to play.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The move 4... c5 is good because:

* It is thematic in the Queen's Gambit Declined to break with either ...c5 or ...e5. With 4...c5, this is done without loss of time
* White isn't putting pressure on the centre, so Black can take it

Here is a sample game, which ended in a draw, between top players Karpov-Sveshnikov

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Karpov"]
[Black "Sveshnikov"]
[StartPly "8"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 c5 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. cxd5 Nd5 7. Bb5 cxd4 8. Nd4 Nc3 9. bxc3 Bd7 10. O-O Nd4 11. Bd7 Qd7 12. cxd4 Be7 13. a4 O-O 14. Qb3 Rfc8 15. Bd2 Rc6 16. Rab1 Rb6 17. Qa2 Ra6 18. a5 Bd8 19. Qb3 Ba5 20. Ba5 Ra5 21. Qb7 Qb7 22. Rb7 Rc8 23. Rfb1 g6 24. h3 Rc2 25. R1b2 Rb2 26. Rb2 Ra1 27. Kh2 h5 28. g4 hxg4 29. hxg4 a5 30. g5 a4 31. Rb8 Kg7 32. Ra8 a3 33. Kg3 Rg1 34. Kf4 Rg2 35. f3 a2 36. e4 Kh7 37. Ke5 Kg7 38. f4 Rb2 39. d5 exd5 40. exd5 Re2 41. Kd6 Rd2 42. Kc6 Rc2 43. Kd7 Rd2 44. d6 Rc2 45. Ke7 Re2 46. Kd8 Rd2 1/2-1/2

```

---
Tags: queens-gambit-declined
---


# Question
Title: Chess challenge from a newspaper in 1927 (win in 2 moves)
I have been trying to solve this for a long time, but can't find a solution. How can white force a checkmate in 2 moves?

```
1R6/4p3/2pkB3/4n1N1/8/1N2K1B1/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

# Answer
> 10 votes
Ask yourself: what would Black do if he were to move? After 1... Kc7, 2. Bxe5 is mate. His other option is 1... c5, threatening to escape with 2... Kc6.

The solution:

> 1. Nc5! blocks the c-pawn. Black gets the additional option of 1... Kxc5, but after that, 2. Ne4 is mate.

<sub>(I can post an interactive version, but that doesn't work with spoilers. And it's a good visualization exercise.)</sub>

---
Tags: checkmate, problems
---


# Question
Title: What is the strength of the Shredder Chrome app?
Today, for the first time, I played against the Chrome app Shredder Chess, and at the "**Hard**" playing strength of the engine, I was easily able to beat it.

I am just about 1850-1900 Elo. My question here is, what (Elo) strength does this engine play at? Can someone evaluate?

I would suggest players to play against it to check its strength.

# Answer
This is a response from the maker of shredder. Hope it helps!

> We are using a different Shredder version on the Chrom App so this is very hard to tell in Elo, even for us.

Best regards Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
> 6 votes

# Answer
I can quite easily beat the iphone app when it is supposedly playing at 2600 Elo. I'm not that good! Very disappointing really.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Ironically I've just played my first few games against it. On its medium setting it twice overlooked a material winning pawn fork, so it may not even be looking two moves (4 ply ahead). In my mind, that makes it less than average ELO strength.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, rating
---


# Question
Title: Creating opportunities for tactics other than by enemy mistakes
Tactics, such as the pin, skewer, and fork, take advantage of uncompromised positions of pieces, and sometimes inadequately guarded pieces. Usually, tactics can also occur during an intermezzo.

If both sides made positional improvements with every move, followed their plan, and made no mistakes, could tactics take place because of the evocation of an incorrect plan?

Perhaps in that case, at least one of the moves was an incorrect move because it's supporting the manifestation of an incorrect plan (wrong strategy).

1. How can one make sure, other than by scanning for the positive conversion of the seven imbalances and looking out for checks, captures, and threats, that an opportunity for a tactic is created?
2. What are some tips to ensure one is following a correct plan (such as counting that your plan will become effective before his)?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Theoretically if both sides play perfectly the game should be drawn. Someone has to make a mistake for the other side to win. According to that logic, material-winning tactics would not be possible without an error, an unlikely scenario I know. Or to invert that, if such tactics were possible, by definition a mistake must have occurred. If you are gaining space, protecting everything and looking for imbalances that you can exploit, I'm not sure there's much else you can do, particularly against someone else who is doing the same.

---
Tags: strategy, tactics
---


# Question
Title: During the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era, what was the rule for stalemate in France?
Wikipedia has a stalemate history section, but for France it only says:

> The forfeiture of Black's turn to move (medieval France) (Murray 1913:464–66) (Davidson 1981:64–65), although other medieval French sources treat stalemate as a draw (Murray 1913:464–66).

Forcing a passed move is a very interesting stalemate rule. It would mean KNNvK could force a checkmate by first forcing stalemate, then Black passes, then White delivers checkmate.

(But not all stalemates necessarily lead to checkmate. There may be some material that can force a stalemate but cannot make a checkmating move right afterwards. An example is black king at d8, white bishop at d7, white king at d6. Black to move is stalemate, but even if he passes a turn, White has no move that can checkmate him. White couldn't force that position alone, of course. It's just an example of stalemate that doesn't lead to checkmate.)

Anyway, the "medieval France" is not qualified in the article. I would guess 1000 - 1600?

I would like to know what was the stalemate rule in France around the Revolutionary and Napoleonic times? 1789 - 1815.

# Answer
I can only cite Davidson, *A short history of chess* (Link), again. From chapter 8:

> \[...\] In Italy, however, from the very beginning, players could not accept stalemate as a victory for anybody. They argued that since no legal move was possible, the game simply stopped. Consequently in medieval Europe four different stalemate rules were simultaneously in effect, and travelling players had to agree in advance as to whether they were playing by the Spanish (victory for White), French (forfeited move for Black), British (victory for Black), or Italian (drawn game) rules. The Italian practice eventually spread throughout the Continent, partly because of the tremendous influence which Italy exercised on all European culture, partly because of the fame of Italian chess players, and partly because the rule seemed inherently logical. By the end of the eighteenth century every part of Europe (except Britain) had agreed that stalemate was a drawn game.

So according to this account, at least by the time of Napoleon stalemate was considered a draw in France.

ADDED: Even better, there is a contemporary source confirming that stalemate was considered a draw. Philidor, *Analyse du jeu des échecs*, 1777 edition (Link), rule XVI at the very end of the book confirms this:

> \[...\] En Angleterre, celui dont le roi est pat, gagne la partie; (b) en France, & dans plusieurs autres pays, le pat est un refait.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: rules, history, stalemate
---


title: Can black get a stalemate?

text:
# Question
Title: Can black get a stalemate?
Can Black somehow get a stalemate against the White King-Queen combination or should he try to save his pawn as long as he can?

```
8/8/5K2/4Q3/4p3/3k4/8/8 b - - 0 1

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
No way. I would resign if I were Black. This is a hopeless position - game over. Anybody other than a total beginner would win for White.

However if:

* Black's pawn is a rook or bishop pawn
* Black's pawn is close to promotion
* Black's king is close to the pawn
* White's king is far away from the pawn

It'd be possible to draw by stalemate.

> https://chess24.com/en/read/news/7-stalemates-every-chess-player-needs-to-know

**Note:** colour reversed in the examples.

King + rook pawn vs. queen

```
7K/7P/6q1/8/8/1k6/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

King + bishop pawn vs. queen (variation)

```
7K/5P2/6q1/8/8/3k4/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
Black's only chance to salvage a draw is to of course, keep his pawn with the hope of queening it. However, this is not possible here because after, say, 1...e3 2.Qd5+ Kc2 3. Qe4 Kd2 4.Qd4+, black must block his own pawn with 4...Ke2 and white can play 5.Kf5, bringing his king closer to the pawn. After 5...Kf2 for example, white goes 6.Qf4+ and black needs to go back with 6...Ke2, and white brings his king closer again with 7.Ke4 and plays 8.Qxe3 the next move.

```
[fen "8/8/5K2/4Q3/4p3/3k4/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...e3 2.Qd5+ Kc2 3. Qe4 Kd2 4.Qd4+ Ke2 5.Kf5 Kf2 6.Qf4+ Ke2 7.Ke4 null 8.Qxe3

```

This idea is similar with the pawn on the 2nd or 7th rank (i.e. 1 square away from queening), except for rook or bishop pawns, which can be drawn under certain conditions (the side with the queen needs to have his king in what most endgame textbooks call the "winning zone"). Wikipedia actually has an article on this.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Without going into a lot of detailed analysis, the simplest way to win as White is to get the Q in front of the pawn (1. Qa1 followed by 2. Qe1 will do it) and then bring your K up to win it with the Q's help. After that it's a simple win with K and Q vs K. Forget about any stalemate ideas. They're wishful thinking in this position.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Black gets a stalemate if his pawn is a rook or bishop pawn, it's on the 7th rank, and the white king is not inside the winning zone (usually one or two squares from the pawn - see Jesus De La Villa's *100 Endgames You Must Know* for more details.)

---
Tags: endgame, stalemate
---


# Question
Title: What advantage does black gain from this move?
Consider the following:

```
[FEN "r3q1k1/p2p1p1p/b1p2QpB/8/8/2r5/P4PPP/R5K1 b - - 0 1"]

```

Why is black's next move Qf8? White just follows with Bf8.

# Answer
There is no good way to stop `Qg7` mate. Black has to give up their queen.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Black's move is forced to stop mate at g7. He has no other alternative. The c3 rook will also fall if the bishop is then recaptured, so the game is hopeless for Black.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: tactics
---


title: 5 year old chess

text:
# Question
Title: 5 year old chess
My 5 year old son is showing immense interest in chess. I play with him and he has joined an after school class for chess.

I was told to buy the book by Polgar. He is solving the mate in one puzzles.

I just let him play and have fun. Any suggestions to help me develop his game?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I am a FIDE National Instructor. Five is plenty old enough. I recommend The Comprehensive Chess Course, by Lev Alburt et al. https://www.amazon.com/Comprehensive-Chess-Course-Lessons-Enlarged/dp/1889323233

Also, just take short games from a book (Polgar has some in the back), let your child take the winning side. Let him guess some of the moves, and talk about why the players made the moves they did. Keep it simple: threatens the pawn on e5, forks King and Queen, lets the Bishop out, etc.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Unless he's one of the rare prodigies, I wouldn't suggest anything too complicated for him now at age 5. I was only able to show my 5 year old grandson the moves. His attention span was too short for anything else. Just stick with the basic's - value of the pieces, simple tactics (forks, pins, simple checkmates such as the mate-in-one puzzles you've been doing). You don't need the Polgar book yet. You can set up your own mate-in-one puzzles. Chess is first of all a game and should be fun. Let him enjoy it while he's young. Making it like work now could be counter-productive in the long run. Your approach sounds correct. Serious training programs are work, and my opinion is that they can wait till later.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I would press him to find out *if* he is a prodigy. There is no going back in time, and you've nothing to lose if done responsibly, and he has everything to gain with your assistance. Maybe find out if he is interested in tournament play and interested in the competitive aspect of organized chess.

---
Tags: teaching
---


title: Giuoco Piano to Kids

text:
# Question
Title: Giuoco Piano to Kids
What to tell to a kid of 6 years about Giuoco Piano opening? Isn't it to calculative or aggressive for a beginner of 6 years?

# Answer
> 1 votes
My daughter is a 1400 now, and we have studied openings very little. She knows a few names, but little else.

I teach opening principles. In ten moves, you should have advanced both center pawns, developed all four minor pieces, and castles.

Just that is enough to get her a decent position out of the opening in most games.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I'd explain nothing about openings to a 6 year old, except *maybe* something about using all your pieces (but it'll fall to deaf ears, most likely).

I assisted at a local school tournament recently, where players of about seven had a lot of trouble playing legal moves, or checkmating their opponent when being up almost everything. Checkmate is often not recognized and whole phases of the game had both kings in check...

The key point is that they must *have fun*, and they usually want to go on hunting expeditions with their queen. That is fine. It's a game, and they're six. My seven year old does not want to play games where she can't create new rules on the fly, period.

Once they *ask*, you can show something like the Italian and explain that it gets some pieces out. That is enough.

But please, show them lots of other things as well, up to move 3 or so (when they ask). I hate to see those kids matches that always start 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 d6 5.Nc3 Nf6 etc because for both of them that's all they know. That makes the game boring, and the main thing should be to have fun.

I don't think concepts like "too aggressive" or "requires too much calculation" really apply to openings for six year olds...

---
Tags: opening, teaching, italian-game, coach
---


# Question
Title: What checkmates are appropriate for 7 year old kids?
I give chess lessons to children and I've been told by my boss that the most important ability at this age is the capacity of delivering checkmate to the opponent.

I've taught them the back rank mate, the smothered mate, pillsbury's mate, mate with a rook, ... Among many others.

I was wondering what checkmate patterns would also be appropriate for children this age. I know that, for example, it would be too difficult for them to learn the 2 bishops checkmate.

P.S. The children are not going to engage in any kind of competition, the most important objective of the class is that they have fun.

# Answer
The approach I use (also with older kids) is that the process of mating involves putting the king in jail and making the walls smaller and smaller ...

For something like smothered mate it is the pieces on the king's own side which build the walls! But when there is not much material left on the board you have to build the walls with your pieces. You can then show them the kind of walls the queen, one rook and then two rooks make. I would also show the wall that one king makes for the other, even though this is only 3 squares long. It comes in handy for KRvK. Of course every wall (apart from the queen wall because the king can't approach the queen) has at least one hole in it where the piece stands.

Once you have this principle established it is easier to teach them the KQvK, KRRvK, KRvK endgame mates. With the ideas behind the "build a prison wall and make it smaller" I believe you can even introduce the KBBvK endgame to young kids although they likely won't succeed most of the time. However it introduces some more interesting ways of handling the two bishops which may help them in the middlegame and I think is still well worth while.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Even before the KR/K mate you could teach the RR/K mate which is simpler (and also fits into **Brian Towers**' "shrinking prison" paradigm) and also works with QR/K (and QQ/K if it comes to that). Of course it depends on the 7-year-old kid in question: Kasparov at that age could probably handle the KBN/K mate too . . .
> 3 votes

# Answer
7-year olds have a wide capacity for chess. Don't treat them as tactical children, but press them with ideas that expand their chess thought.

Bxh7 mates; Nh6/Bf6 mates; f7-sacrifices followed by invasion on the light squares (e6/g6); Rook lifts to the third rank followed by sacrifices on the 7th rank;

Important is to make observations on their own games of mating patterns that they missed. Nothing better. Chess is fun - taking a game of their own and expanding on the ideas they had during the game is awesome sauce.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, teaching
---


# Question
Title: Does the Lomonosov Tablebase (and others) include extra material positions such as KQQvKQQQ?
Lomonosov Endgame Tablebase says it includes all endgames with 7 pieces. But does that include things like KQQ v KQQQ? At every possible position?

Such things seem highly unlikely, but theoretically possible. I recently watched a Fischer-Petrosion game that went to 4 queens in the endgame that also included a bishop v knight and some pawns. They eventually agreed to a draw.

Other unlikely things: KBBvKNNN, KQRvKQQ, KRvKBBBB. Have any of these been evaluated?

So I guess the general question would be, have all 7-or-less endgames been evaluated where at least one side has 2+ queens, 3+ rooks, 3+ bishops, or 3+ knights?

# Answer
The Lomonosov Endgame Tablebase supports 7 pieces. That means it has all the positions you describe in your question. Otherwise, it's not a tablebase by definition.

The "ridiculous" positions you mention might not happen on the board but might still happen in the engine search. They're still important because pawns can promote, and a chess engine looks at lots of possibilities -- not just positions that actually appear on the board.

All 7-or-less endgames have been analyzed. However, some tablebase implementations leave out bare king endgames.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The Lomonossov tablebases include all 7-man positions with the exception of 6 pieces vs lone king.

Most material distributions you consider "ridiculous" are in fact required to evaluate "interesting" positions because of possible pawn promotions. This works recursively, so if you want to solve e.g. KPPPvKPP, you need (among others) the table KPPQvKPP first. To solve KPPQvKPP, you need (among others) the table KPPQvKPQ first, &c.

Ultimately, you need KQQQvKQQ and all other 4-man vs 3-man tables to solve the endgame KPPPvKPP. So it is necessary to have all possible material constellations, even those who seem to be uninteresting.
> 11 votes

---
Tags: endgame, tablebases
---


title: Why was Nd2 played? instead of f4!

text:
# Question
Title: Why was Nd2 played? instead of f4!
```
1kb4r/4r3/p1p3p1/Pp1p1p1p/1P1P3P/5PP1/2P2K2/1NR2R2 w - - 0 1

1. Nd2 Rhe8 (1... f4!) (1. f4!)

```

Silman suggests 1. Nd2, with a black response of Rhe8. Wouldn't black just respond with 1...f4! instead? This gives black counter-play on the kingside, opens an f-file for him, and activates his bishop (with an eventual ...Bf5!)

White should have just played 1. f4! What prevented such a move from being considered?

# Answer
> 5 votes
1.f4 kills the game. White currently has the advantage of a good knight against a bad bishop. But black will double on the e-file and that will lead to an exchange of rooks. In the resulting endgame the better minor piece won't be enough to put pressure on black because with f4 you have closed the way for your king into the enemy position.

If you want to play for the win you need to keep a way open for the white king to penetrate. That also means that after 1.Nd2 f4 you probably shouldn't take on f4. After 2.gf Bf5 there is again no way into the black position.

# Answer
> 5 votes
## Why 1. Nd2?

Silman is suggesting to improve the worst placed piece with Nd2-b3-c5. This makes sense because:

1. White will have a good knight vs. bad bishop
2. The position is closed so White has the time to improve the worst piece

## Why not 1. f4?

Black's ...f4 and ...Bf5 plan isn't that strong, because:

1. When black's bishop gets to f5, it doesn't threaten anything
2. White doesn't have to open files with gxf4. White should continue with the Nd2-b3-c5 plan as before

Having said this, 1. f4 isn't a bad move, i.e. it deprives the bishop of another target.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I believe the f4! move for White is definitely a good idea instead of Nd2 . After f4 from White it is like catching 2 birds with one arrow .

* f4 from White deprives the Black Light Squared Bishop & tangles it into his own pawn chain and creates a Bad Bishop .
* f4 frees the f3 squares for the Knight . The Knight hops to d2-f3-e5 . From e5 the g6 & c6 becomes juicy targets and makes the Knight a supreme one . The Knight can change the course and even go to c5 . There are many ways where the Knight will dominate and the Bishop will be locked in its pawn chain .

Even Black has a mild command of the open e-file White can place his any Rook on the e-file and exchange them . Creating a principle of two Weakness and positional strategy White should win the game in the end .

I did not feed this position into any computer but there seems to be one catch in the above explanation . With the Rooks being exchanged on e-file and f4 from White locks up everything . The pawn formation creates a wall where neither King will be allowed to enter in opponent's territory . Black Bishop can stay in e8 and protect the pawns c6 & g6 and will control the squares of the Knight and Black King can do the remaining tasks of flanking the white King .So summary is it is better to delay f4 from White and possibly ignore it until you have a sure advantage .

# Answer
> 0 votes
White's best plan is Nd2, followed by Nb3 and Nc5. From there it attacks the pawn a6 as well as the key square e6. Black will have a hard time defending both places.

More to point, the Ne5 can move quickly to the kingside with Nd3 followed by Ne5 or Nf4. You don't want to play your pawn e4 because it takes away this "stepping stone" for the knight. Because the creation of "bad bishop" by the white squared pawns, this is one of the few positions in which a knight can move from one side to another faster than a bishop.

# Answer
> -2 votes
1.f4 gives away the e4-square and temporarily hands black a slight initiative. Aesthetically, it looks unpleasing.

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: How does black break into the position? What is a good plan for black?
```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6
2.Nf3 d5
3.exd5 exd5
4.d4 Bd6
5.Be2 Ne7
6.c3? O-O
7.O-O Ng6
8.Nbd2 Nf4
9.Re1 Nxe2+
10.Rxe2

```

Black's plan in the beginning was to take advantage of the (to-be) weak light squares around the white king by trading either his knight or light bishop for white's. It went easy, but now black can't find a solid way to break into the position.

Black sees that Qb3 is a potential threat that forks b7 and d5. The attack on d5 is not to be feared after 11. Qb3 b6 12. Qxd5?? Bxh2+, but this is how the game could have continued:

10... Bf5 (activating the light bishop and preventing white's control of the b1-h7 diagonal by Qc2)

```
11. Qb3 b6
12. Kh1 c6

```

Does black have anything better?

# Answer
This position is still very far from having a definitive character that would dictate the nature of best play. That is still perhaps twenty moves away. If you are already thinking that you have an advantage and just need to find a way in, you will not be playing objectively. Your position is fine, you will be able to develop easily, you have two Bishops, but you have no point of attack, and you don't know yet what White plans to do.

There is an old saying that if you can't think of a good move, wait until your opponent makes a bad one. I think that may apply here, because White has not yet played badly enough to lose, but it does not mean that you can just play anything. Do not simply play the position as it is. What can you create? There is usually something, which is how Magnus creates wins out of sterile positions.

I rather like ..b6 to be followed by ..Ba6, ..c5 and ..Nc6. That puts a lot of new ideas on the board, and gives White more chance to go wrong.
> 4 votes

# Answer
What pops to mind are the Natural looking c6/Qc7; Nc6/Ne7/Ng6 and Bg4 is another development plan. Black needs to coordinate his pieces and place them on good squares to complete his development - as a Cat A player, that is how I look at it. The position is a little flat. Part of me is not crazy about 10...Bf5 11.Qb3 b6 12.c4!? c6 13.Nf1 Bg4 14. Bg5 and white is nicely reorganized and has freed his game up quite a bit.
> 2 votes

# Answer
What I see is not a light square weakness, but a bad dark square bishop. You first need is to catch up in development. My plan would be to play c6 to prevent the d pawn from moving, Bg4 to exchange off my bad bishop, (I don't play well with bishops, so this is very subjective.) and h6 to restrict his bishop. Due to only open file, the rooks and probably the queens will be exchanged.

Since white has more center control, you shouldn't be thinking about an attack. Your best bet seems to be in the endgame, however, due to the lack of pawn weaknesses, it is hard to proceed.
> 1 votes

# Answer
This is the french exchange variation, and as far as I see it, the game is still in its opening phase. And we know what that means: development, development, development! Neither player has finished deploying their pieces to their most effective squares, and they should focus on doing this to begin with.

Therefore I think that your suggested 10...Bf5 is a perfectly reasonable move, since it places black's LSB on a very active diagonal, and even manages to restrict white's movements somewhat. Then black should aim to improve the b8-knight by putting it on, say, f6, and connect the rooks. Fighting for the control over the e-file is a very common theme in the French advance, so doubling the rooks over there is a reasonable course of action.

Now, what will white play in the meantime? Just like black, white should focus on developing his pieces. At the moment, the c1-bishop is blocked by the d2-knight, which is totally unacceptable, so white must at some point reposition the d2-knight. White's idea with Qb3 may seem appealing, but since it really doesn't threaten anything particularly dangerous (as you demonstrated) it's more a question whether white really wants the queen there to begin with.

Regardless, the d2-knight has to go somewhere, and most likely it will go to g3 via f1, or to b3. Then white will clear the first rank to double the rooks on the e-file (in this context Qb3 has a point, since it helps white clear the first rank with tempo).

Worth mentioning, due to the placement of the e2-rook, is that after 10...Bf5 whenever white moves the d2-knight, black will be able to play Be4, threatening to take on f3 and damaging white's pawn structure. This could potentially gain a tempo for black in some lines.

In general, after both players have finished developing, I think that black should be at least slightly favoured due to the bishop pair and white's somewhat clumsy development.

One final note: under no circumstances will Kh1 be a good move for white in the next few moves. It simply wastes a tempo when white is already struggling to develop the remaining pieces. Even after 10...Bf5 11.Qb3 b6, white does not go for the simple threat of taking on d5 with Kh1?!, since black still has to develop the knight on b8. Black would love to play Nd7 to develop the piece, but that is not possible to do immediately, since then white really can take on d5. Thus, if black prepares Nd7 by playing c6 anyway, the tempo wasted on playing Kh1 could be more effectively used for other things.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The plan I would adopt as Black is Nd7, followed by Nf6, followed eventually by N e4, supported by a B or P on f5. Black should try for an exchange of knights to get the Bishop pair against Bishop and Knight; right now White has an offsetting "Knight pair."

Another advantage of the N on d7 is that it can also be moved to b6 to counteract White's queen side maneuvers. Black has a better structural position but is slightly behind in development, meaning that he needs to worry about limiting White's piece play before trying to utilize his positional advantages.
> 0 votes

# Answer
The position is just in the Initial phase and there can be many ways or plans where Black can make good progress but the Key Strategic things which Black should keep in his mind is that

1. Black should play the move f6 so that the White's Knights should not occupy the juicy e5 square .
2. Black has the two Bishops so he should make the Game open . Now c5 , Bf5 and Qc7 Nd7 moves should be natural to support this .
3. As the Bishops primary position would be Bd6 and Bf5 Black should aim for playing in centre and towards K-side and allow White to play on the Q-side .
> 0 votes

---
Tags: attack, planning, development
---


# Question
Title: Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual vs Fundamental Chess Endings
I want to know what the differences are between "Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual" and "Fundamental Chess Endings".

I want to know also if these books are compatible, I mean, if I buy for example "Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual", it would be useless to buy "Fundamental Chess Endings" because they are very similar in his ideas or the examples that they show, or it is OK to have both books? I'm a 2100+ FIDE rated player, and that's why I want to buy these books, because I think they are for my level already.

# Answer
They are both great, I agree that you should get both.

*Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual* is perhaps more instructive since it has slightly more explanatory text and tries to organize the material around rules for reader to learn, while *Fundamental Chess Endings* has more examples in about the same number of total pages. They both focus on practical examples from real games with very few pieces left.

In the end it's not the books you buy, but the work you put in, that matters.
> 9 votes

# Answer
I disagree with the other answer that it's not the book but the hours you put in - if the book is off-putting and difficult to follow, it will affect your motivation to put in the hours required.

IM John Watson has a fantastic review of Dvoretsky's work which I recommend you read before committing either way.

> I must emphasize that this is a terribly advanced work that I don't think is a very good way for the average player to study the endgame. The majority of the examples are complex and position-specific, and neither the average student nor even strong masters will follow or play over most of the hundreds of positions that are given extensive analysis, not to mention the subvariations derived from those positions.

He also contrasts this with Fundamental Chess Endings:

> In my own teaching to average players I am still using Mueller and Lamprecht's Fundamental Chess Endings, which has a wonderful balance between Encyclopaedic coverage (I can find almost anything), examples that can be shortened at most points, and clear explanations that bring together endings of the same sort.

"Get them both!" they say and of course if you are financially so fortunate then you obviously can't go wrong with that, but if you are only going to get one, and are not IM level, I suggest get Fundamental Chess Endings first and then move on to Dvoretsky once you have mastered this (and have appetite for more).
> 8 votes

# Answer
The key difference between the two, I believe, is the use of key positions in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual in Blue Print. Those become a "must know" subset of endgame knowledge and should be concentrated on first, and consist of around 200+ positions to study along with the excellent text explanations. I too have both books and use DEM mostly and FCE for references if I want more examples. There is also a considerable cross-pollination between the two with the same positions in both.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: endgame, books
---


# Question
Title: When playing a computer opponent what situations should I create to give myself a better chance of winning?
Normally when I play against a computer I try to avoid any positions where I feel the knowledge-base of the computer would give it an advantage. For example I find computers very strong in typical protracted opening sequences and in endgames.

I seem to fare best against strong computer opponents when I play more positional, "by the gut" chess than when I attempt to apply a more strategic and tactical game plan.

I am wondering if this is something other people have experienced; if there is a practical basis for this belief and what type of chess situations have proved fruitful for them when playing against a digital opponent.

# Answer
Interesting question, but it's a little bit hard to answer generally. Any engine has its own quirks, but I'll try to give a few general hints and things to consider.

First, any modern engine on sufficiently fast hardware is going to wipe you off the board. Even top GM's lose to engines *with odds*. 1 However, most engines have the hardest time in closed positions where long-term strategy is more important than tactics on any given move. Games that are very closed (think classical KID lines) are won or lost based on chess understanding, and engines still don't truly understand chess.

One very interesting thing, however, is that some engines actually are vulnerable in extremely *tactical* games. Most notably, engines are not always as good as humans when one side has a large attack. Engines are notoriously bad at overestimating defensive resources and going into a line that is losing for the defender. However, there is absolutely no margin for error in this case since a single misstep means the loss of the game. This method (i.e. attacking the computer's king), is a very easy way to win against slightly weaker engines - for example the ones built into Windows and Macs (also the chess games on international flights, but those are really awful...).

To finish, probably the only way to have good chances against a strong machine are to memorize the moves ahead of time. This might sound fantastic, but it's already been done. The point is that the engine will spit out the exact same moves every game (under identical conditions), so it's possible to find a hole in the engine's repertoire and steer the game into this gap.

---

1. Rybka has played many odds matches - most notably against IM Meyer, GM Ehlvest, and GM Milov (who actually won the match!).
> 6 votes

# Answer
Yes, that generally happens with me as well. I have been playing a lot of chess at a younger age with my gut instinct and now, when I move to a more tactical game by seeing professional games and chess sites, and try to implement the same during my game, I am completely lost.

Gut-moves generally work well as these are the moves that one has generally made while playing for a considerable amount of time. Going for a drastic change from the "Gut-game" to a tactical game plan would be a hindrance as the board position would be something totally new to what one is acclimatized. A gradual move to a more tactical game plan is suggested.

I also feel that the earlier in one's chess life, they learn the tactical game plan, the better it is.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Positional play, even sacrifices like "poisoned" pawns. The computer won't see an immediate threat and hence grab the material, but in the long run you can use that weakness (double pawn, bad bishop etc.) to your advantage.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I believe that the OP's observation is correct. A computer is worst at evaluating "intangible" advantages, and best at calculating "lines." So to the extent possible, a human player should aim for the former and avoid the latter.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I've had good results against the computer by avoiding it's strength, which is tactics. Try to keep the game closed and positional for that reason. Also, book opening lines are programmed into the computer, so avoiding them is a good idea. As far as end games are concerned, I've found them weakest there, where the lines extend beyond their horizon. Of course, I'm not speaking about the very highest settings where that wouldn't apply. If fact I've had my best results by heading for the ending with at least an equal position and outplaying them there. And since the computers are so materially oriented, I've been able to make successful sacrifices against them when the position warranted since they'll typically grab the material.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, tactics
---


# Question
Title: How should White continue after Nxb4 in the Evans Gambit?
Recently I have been playing the Evans Gambit as many times as I can and for the most part, black plays `4...Bxb4`, but someone played `4...Nxb4` and I wasn't sure how to continue. After the following moves below, how should I continue with the `Evans Gambit` as white?

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Bc5
4. b4  Nxb4
5. c3  Nc6
6. d4  exd4

```

# Answer
> 12 votes
`4...Nxb4` directly transposes to the main line with `4...Bxb4 5. c3 Bc5`.

In that line, white usually plays `6. d4 exd4 7. O-O!`.

Black cannot take the pawn on c3 because of `8. Bxf7+! Kxf7 9. Qd5+` picking off the bishop on c5 with an overwhelming advantage.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Nxb4 (4... Bxb4 5. c3 Bc5) 5. c3 Nc6 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O $1 dxc3 $2 8. Bxf7+ $1 Kxf7 9. Qd5+

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
The only point of `4...Nxb4` is to set a trap already noted in comments to two of the answers:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Nxb4 5. Nxe5? Qf6 6. d4? (6. O-O Qxe5 7. c3 Bd6 8. f4? Qc5+) Bxd4! 7. Qxd4 Nxc2+ 0-1

```

Interpolating 6 Bxf7+ doesn't help; the best White can do is bail out with `6. O-O`, but that's still not nearly enough compensation for the lost Knight.

However, if White plays the normal `5. c3` instead, Black is basically forced to play `Nc6`, transposing to the Bc5 variation of the main line `4...Bxb4 5. c3` — so `4...Nxb4` is no better than `4...Bxb4`, and may be worse if you prefer `5...Ba5` in the main line, or if White turns out to have a better move than `5. c3` (perhaps `5. 0-0`, or an immediate `5. d4` as **xaisoft** suggests in a comment to **Andrew**'s answer).

# Answer
> 0 votes
Answering the original question: after 4...Nb4 5.Ne5 (threatens 6.Nf7 or Bf7+) if 5...Nh6 6.d4? Bd6? 7.Bh6 Be5 then things go wild with 8.Bf7+ Kf7 9.Qh5+ & then 10.Qe5 but Black has a fork with check in hand ...Nc2+ but White has the attack.

```
    However instead of 6...Bd6?, Black has 6...Bd4! as 7.Qd4 fails to
    7...Nc2+

```

So White needs 6.c3 before 7.d4. Basically instead of the original 4...Nb4 5.c3 ... ,
try 4...Nb4 5.Ne5 Nh6 6.c3 and the position looks good for White.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I don't play the Evans, but I happened to play this friendly game an hour ago, and came here looking to see what the Books said about 4...Nxb4. I saw no reason to transpose to other lines but sought some advantage, and it was a fun if flawed game. I have not seen a master game with this yet.

(PHS vs Ken, offhand game 5-27-2017)

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Nxb4 5. Nxe5 d5 6. exd5 Qf6 7. d4 Bb6 8. Nc3 Ne7 9. a3 Na6 10. Ne4 Qh4 11. Qf3 f6 12. Nf7 Bg4 13. Qb3 Bxd4 14. d6 Be6 15. Qxb7 Rb8 16. d7+ Kxf7 17. Bxe6+ Kxe6 18. Qxa6+ Bb6 19. Qc4+ Ke5 20. Bb2+ Kf5 21. Ng3+ Kg5 22. Bc1+

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
The main strategic theme for White in Evans is White builds up a Powerful Centre and sacrifices some Pawns to create a lasting initiative & one objective of White is always restrict Black to castle . The Evans gambit is for the Players who are the Prime attackers and are bold enough to sacrifice material at all costs to maintain the initiative.

Here in the above position White should castle first and depending on Black's best reply which is d5,Nf6,d\*c3 White has too many ways to keep the momentum .

Let's check some of the lines .

1. if dc3 from Black then White can play Bf7+ and then Qd5+ nabs the Black Bishop and Black cannot castle anymore and his King stays in the centre .
2. if Nf6 then c\*d4 and White's Pawn simply dominates the Centre kicking off the Bishop & the Knights.
3. If d5 then after ed5 the e-file from White gets opened . The Queen can come to h5 targeting the f7 pawn and Black King would be in pretty bad position with development quite incomplete and defend for the rest of the Game .

I would say this is quite a familiar position for the Evans Gambit practitioners you can refer 1-2 games of Kasparov/Fischer/Janowsky/Marshall/Anderson/Morphy to see how the games go on.

---
Tags: opening, learning, evans-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Gull engine : Which depth value to set 6 difficulty levels?
We are installing the Gull engine for some chess enthusiasts in an organization. We would like to set 6 difficulty levels from beginner to master using depth. Is there someone who can advice us about which values are the most accurate and progressive for each level?

# Answer
You may find this post by the developers of the website https://lichess.org/ helpful.

Although they use Stockfish as the engine, they set the search depths as such (note that they have eight levels of play):

* AI level 1: skill 3/20, depth 1, 50ms
* AI level 2: skill 6/20, depth 2, 100ms
* AI level 3: skill 9/20, depth 3, 150ms
* AI level 4: skill 11/20, depth 4, 200ms
* AI level 5: skill 14/20, depth 6, 250ms
* AI level 6: skill 17/20, depth 8, 300ms
* AI level 7: skill 20/20, depth 10, 350ms
* AI level 8: skill 20/20, depth 12, 400ms

I have personally played and seen others play against the varying levels. Level 1 is almost joke worthy--the computer may move his queen completely into danger, completely miss checkmates, etc.

On the other hand, level eight is crushing; beating it requires repeated practice over the same line (at least, that is the only way I've seen people beat it).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: software, programming
---


title: Number of moves till draw with a king

text:
# Question
Title: Number of moves till draw with a king
```
5R2/8/6k1/8/4Q3/p7/P7/8 b - - 0 1

```

If there is a king (black) and one pawn (black) with one queen (white), one pawn (white) and one rook (white) and the pawn (white) is blocking pawn (black).

Can the king (black) start counting moves to claim a draw?

Please help and add supporting evidence.

# Answer
You could start counting from ANY position. It will be a draw if 50 moves elapse without a piece being taken or a pawn being moved. You could even start counting from the opening position - both sides could just move their knights around randomly, and maybe move their rooks to where the knights used to be, for 50 moves.

The fact that the pawns are blocked in the position you show doesn't matter to the 50 move rule, except that it makes them less likely to move and thus reset the count. Whether a pawn *could* move or a piece *could* be captured is irrelevant - what matters is whether that actually *does* happen in the game.

Although you can start counting, White has several ways to reset the count in the position you show. They could capture the remaining pawn, and thus reset the count to 0. With the pawn out of the way, they could later move their own pawn several times to keep resetting the count. They could even move their own queen next to the Black king to force it to be captured, to reset the count - remember, ANY capture resets it.

There is a USCF rule (14F4) that someone in sudden death with less than 5 minutes left, and a position where captures and pawn moves are unlikely, can ask the TD for assistance in counting moves. Whether the TD agrees is up to his discretion. In such a case, the pawns being locked might factor in to whether he agrees to help.

(I'm ignoring that there's no White king in your diagram; I assume that to be an oversight and not part of the question. Lack of a king means there's an ongoing illegal position, and that has its own rules.)
> 2 votes

# Answer
Yes, black can start counting to 50 moves. See Article 5.2e of the FIDE handbook:

> The game may be drawn if each player has made at least the last 50 moves without the movement of any pawn and without any capture (see Article 9.3).

In this case, black may (but is not obliged to) claim a draw. For the sake of completeness, Article 9.6b also states the following:

> Any consecutive series of 75 moves have been completed by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.

the difference here being that, the game shall be declared drawn by the arbiter whether the players like it or not.

Of course, this is subject to white having a king on the board too...
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, draw, kings
---


# Question
Title: Why is it a good idea to retreat the bishop into the pawn chain in this variation of the Caro Kann?
I am reading a book about the Caro-Kann defence. In this position the author suggests playing 5...Bd7. (Although they assert that Bg6 is not a bad move either). In fact, the whole idea of playing Qb6 early instead of e6 is so that the bishop can retreat to d7 in case of g4.

I find this very confusing. The point of playing the Caro-Kann instead of the French defence is to not have a bad bishop at the price of having to "waste" a tempo with c6.

But in this position not only did black "waste" a tempo with c6, they also had to move the bishop twice AND back inside the pawn chain.

So my question is: why would black want to do that? Why isn't this just a much worse position in a French-like structure considering that ...c5 will come in two moves instead of one, the bishop is inside the pawn chain, and white has got the move g4 for free which might be useful later?

```
rn2kbnr/pp2pppp/1qp5/3pPb2/3P2P1/2N5/PPP2P1P/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 9 5
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nc3 Qb6 5. g4

```

# Answer
White made two moves, which are by far not typical in advance french. The first is Nc3, blocking the c-pawn, and the second is g4, which can be usefull one day but can be also quite weakening. Black will not blindly castle under mate attack, but will play in the center and on the c-file and if he manages to push h5 at right time, getting control over f5 square, white can get awful endgame. If I was White after Bd7, I guess I would like to have my pawn back on g2 while I would not see big advantage in having knight on c3. Anyway I would go for Nce2 with c3.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The immediate point of Bd7 versus Bg6 is to prevent White from playing 6 e6 which could give Black's King a lot of trouble.

Generally, Black cannot entirely avoid White's g4 anyway (it's always a move to keep in mind in the advance variation). However, the question is: Does that move actually help White in the long run? Yes, it gains the short-term advantage you mention (free tempo + space), but at the same time it also comes with the long-term disadvantage of fracturing White's kingside pawn structure. Black can then try to play around this and later free the Bishop via e8 & f7-h5 (after that pawn has moved to f6 to attack White's center).
> 6 votes

---
Tags: opening, french-defense, caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: Is FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov a good chess player? What's his Elo rating?
On this page it says he is not rated: http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=34123811

I could only find one game featuring Ilyumzhinov, in which he played a 2300 Elo player and lost: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1600034

That's not very impressive for someone who owns FIDE and who boasts of having played a few games with aliens...

# Answer
Little is known about his rating, indeed, he has no FIDE rating.

I dug deeper in the tournament that lodebari found, at the FIDE page for the 2012 Members Appreciation Blitz tournament. Apparently he scored 2.5/7 against a 1950 Elo average, beating a 1850 and a 1700, losing to two 1900s and some stronger players, and drawing to a 1670.

That doesn't look like a 2300-rated player to me. **More like 1850.**
> 2 votes

# Answer
According to the source provided by @Lynob, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov had a rating of 2300 and was local champion of Kalmykia at the age of 14 (see also here). The game you mention against Alexander Zakharov took place in 1978, when Ilyumzhinov was about 16 years old.

However, and as you say, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov is unrated at the moment according to FIDE. But according to the same source he has played 9 rated games (not enough to get a rating). Making some research I found he played these games in the Members Appreciation Blitz Tournament in Skokie (USA) in 2012 with a result of +4 =1 -4.

Appart from that, I think he mostly plays friendly games. If you search "Kirsan Ilyumzhinov plays chess" in Google you'll find some images of him playing with different people, such as Gaddafi, Steven Seagal, the Minister of Sports Affairs of Oman or a Paraguayan student.
> 1 votes

# Answer
He has a rating of 2300

> As a competitor, he had a FIDE rating of 2300, just shy of earning the title chess master.

Source Al Jazeera report
> -2 votes

---
Tags: rating, elo, fide, famous-players
---


# Question
Title: Why is 14..Qd8 the most popular move in this variation of the Caro Kann?
According to chessbase, 14..Qd8 is by far the most popular continuation in this position (196 games), even though Stockfish 8 seems to prefer 14..Ngf6 (1 game).

I'm struggling to understand the rationale for 14..Qd8, as the queen looks reasonable on a5 for the time being (pinning the pawn on c3, which may allow tactics on d4), while 14..Ngf6 develops a critical piece which allows the black king to castle. Admittedly, after 14..Ngf6, the white attack on g7 can build up quickly with ideas of exchanging knights and then Qg4 and Rh3-g3, but black has defensive resources to deal with it and I fail to see how 14..Qd8 helps in any case.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7
8. h5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 e6 11. Bf4 Qa5+ 12. Bd2 Bb4 13. c3 Be7
14. Bf4 Qd8!? {+0.22 - most popular move}
( 14... Ngf6 { -0.14: Engine likes this better} )

```

# Answer
This is ctg format property, or bug, if you like. There were no games played with 14.Bf4 and as well there were no games played with 14...Qd8. The ctg tree just knows position after 14...Qd8. Certainly it happens via different move order. So in 196 games wasn't played 14...Qd8, but 196 games saw the position arising after 14...Qd8.

This position arises in 11...Bb4+ 12.c3 Be7 line after move 12.

I dislike this ctg thing as it can hide a lot of refutations in move order sensitive lines. **It navigates you towards most played positions, it doesn't show you the most played moves**.
> 20 votes

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


# Question
Title: Elimination of the knight: Direct or Indirect?
Between 18. Na2 and 18. Rac1, which is more favorable for white?

# Answer
I think Na2 is the best though it takes the Knight away from the Centre of the board hindering basic Chess Principles but if you take a note then Black is ok on Centre and K-side and his weakness resides in the Queenside .

So Na2 removes the Knight from b4 and the Bishop can dominate on light Squares like c6 where it can attack the d5 Square . Also the a6 Pawn will become weak once the Knight is lost .
> 1 votes

# Answer
IM Silman gives this position as problem 3 in *The reassess your chess workbook*. He recommends 18. Na2:

> Short played the surprising and strong **18. Na2!!**. This idea ... shows that White considers the b4-Knight to be more important than its brother on e4. The reason is simple: the b4-Knight is the main guardian of Black's weak points on a6, c6 and d5.

IM Silman does not consider 18. Rac1 in his analysis.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: Pessimism in chess

text:
# Question
Title: Pessimism in chess
Yesterday I played a tournament game against a lower rated player. I was white. We entered a Sicilian sub-line of which I didn't know much. Soon, my opening advantage evaporated and I started feeling uncomfortable, even worse, although the engine insists that it is at least equal for me. Because I was so pessimistic about my position, I went on to sacrifice the exchange in a complicated line I calculated beforehand. I knew it wouldn't work, since I had seen his response in advance. Nevertheless, I guess I hoped he'd go wrong somewhere. I lost soon thereafter, because I was down material with no compensation. I am convinced that my mistake was of psychological nature. Maybe I wanted to really show that I'm the stronger player by finishing him off with a combination? But yeah, it didn't really work. Maybe my pessimism also contributed to this, I don't know. Is there anyone who has experienced a similar problem and can help me out?

# Answer
It's a very natural human instinct to go "all-in" when we feel cornered. Sometimes, that reaction actually succeeds because the enemy is taken by surprise.. sometimes all it does is make us lose faster (which might still feel better than continue suffering). There are many situations where it actually makes a lot of sense in chess: For example, if you are already down material, you are more or less forced to go on the offensive. If you don't, your opponent can simply grind you down and win the endgame with that extra piece or pawn.

**However**.. that is not what happened in your case. Instead, it sounds like you created your problem yourself. And I'd argue that, rather than *pessimism*, you displayed the wrong kind of *optimism*. You hoped that your opponent would not see the same moves that you saw. DON'T DO THAT. Ever. If you can see a move, always assume that your opponent can do the same. After all, if you are matched against each other, you will likely not be far away from each other in terms of rating/skill.

It is always good in chess to be pessimistic about your opponent's moves. This is the "MinMax" way of thinking (if you want to know more, google it ;) ). It's the mindset to improve in the game, rather than just (maybe) swindle your way to a few victories you did not really deserve according to our silicon friends.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Playing with lower rated Players & Winning against them can be a serious topic. Even I have played with lower rated Players and have been defeated . The lower rated Players have something all have in common . They will mostly in 90% cases will deviate from the main lines of Ultra Sharp variations like Sicilian , French , Caro Kann, Pirc and basically lines with e4 variation .

In d4 majority of the openings are harmless and it is somewhat impossible to make out an advantage in the openings unless you have a 2200 higher ELO .

I have read in Books how GMs tackle the lower rated opponents . Basically they allow the opponent to make the mistake and then they pounce upon it . They surely know that their Chess Skill is higher and eventually one mistake would cost the lower rated opponent dearly and make them loose the Game . In your approach you were first not confident of the opening line and then with fumbling attitude you sacrificed the piece with knowing the best response from your opponent . Basically you were trying to win by luck here thinking that because he stands less on the rating side he will do a mistake .

My advise for you is :

1. Do not judge anybody by the rating .
2. Practice with lower rated opponents online . It will help you to grasp their ideas and fortify your skill against them .
3. If you are playing e4 then you can make a subset of your opening repertoire or narrow it down like for an example when someone play Caro Kann against me I play the Panov Attack . I am very uncomfortable in the other lines of Caro Kann or most probably I have not yet mustered .
4. Nowadays with the advent of Computers , apps and other digital technology everyone has a great opening understanding . You cannot only just concentrate on Middle game or End game . You need to make a good opening choice else how can you stand well in the Middle game ! Your psychology will be optimistic & strong when you make your pieces stand on better Squares .
> 2 votes

# Answer
**"I went on to sacrifice the exchange in a complicated line I calculated beforehand. I knew it wouldn't work, since I had seen his response in advance. Nevertheless, I guess I hoped he'd go wrong somewhere."**

This. You did not play the board, you played the opponent's rating. You need to be circumspect and look at the board and play the best move you can. If you see a sacrifice opportunity and you see it does not work, look elsewhere. Don't play **"hope"** chess.

Don't worry. You'll do it again, and lose. It takes a few iterations before you realize that playing good chess is actual work.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I've had similar problems, generally with higher rated players though. I assume they see things I can't. But the advice I've seen is to play the board and not make assumptions. If you're going to lose, it might as well be with your best play rather than defending against threats that may or may not be there. If they are and you can't see them, then you'll just learn thereby. Otherwise, you'll do better than you would with an ultra conservative approach. To give a specific example, I played in a simul against Tigran Petrosian many years ago and lost a piece trying to defend against imaginary threats. Subsequently I relaxed, thinking I was lost anyway, and played better, just reacting to what I saw on the board. I even made a combination that won his Q for a R and B, although I still lost in the ending. But I thought I still learned a valuable lesson as a result, i.e. to play with confidence. In other words, I'm confirming your belief that attitude is very important.
> 1 votes

# Answer
You still make around 50% points in somewhat unpleasant position against weaker player by playing normal chess. I guess you don't make so much by naive assault. Otherwise it would be correct play under any circumstances. Prepare for these scenarios as well as for Sicilian or French. Think about them in training, when there is no stress involved. The result will be better when you prepare strategy for such situations with good mindset.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: psychology
---


# Question
Title: Which elements of chess are best to focus on for extended "crash course" learning?
I want to spend between 1-2 hours/week practicing chess. I know that my skill will be severely limited by the time constraint. However, within this time constraint, where would my time be best spent? I obviously won't expect to challenge serious players and win (or even provide much of a challenge), so you can assume that all of my opponents are casual players as well.

For example, would my time be best spent playing AI's (so I don't have to wait for my opponent to make a move)? I'm not expecting an exact breakdown of what I should be doing, just some general advice.

# Answer
Depends a bit on your level.

Assuming you are rather a beginner player, the best way to improve is by studying **tactics**/solving tactics puzzles. You can do this on many websites, which is quicker than doing it from a book and also most websites will present you puzzles suited to your level.

For a beginner I find chesstempo.com quite useful because after you solve a puzzle (or after you fail to solve), it will tell you the name of the tactical motif. Take note of these motifs, understand them and try to look for them when solving puzzles. Once you have stored a number of motifs in your brain, solving tactics puzzles will be much easier since you will not have to calculate move by move, but can think in patterns. Also chesstempo have a list of tactical motifs which you might want to consult.

As a second major topic you should learn **general principals** of play (e.g. develop pieces to active squares, occupy the center, king safety...) and perhaps a bit later **positional motifs**.

Opening theory is not very relevant for beginners, because in general it can only gives a small positional edge and most beginner games are decided by blundering a piece somewhere. Also for making use of openings you need to play opponents who also play theory, which is usually not the case with beginners. So don't waste your time with openings at this point in time.

And of course you should keep on playing games. Personally I'd rather play humans (online or over the board) than computers, but whatever suits you. Play games with longer time controls (10 min or more) in order to reduce the chance for blunders and to give you the opportunity to think about the position. For me lichess works best and has lots of features, but there are other options for playing online.

How to split time between studying and playing is up to you. After all you want to enjoy playing chess.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I would focus on tactics, and playing games. For example, do 15 minutes of some form of tactics trainer and then spend the rest of your time playing against other humans online. Every time you do an interesting tactic, make sure to take note of it so that you can do the same thing in similar positions later on. The emphasis is on tactics. Tactics lead to material advantages, which are much more static and concrete than positional play, which only gives a small edge and it is easy to lose the edge at your level. For information about tactical motifs, I refer you the chesstempo's site. Do not play against a computer. You should not be waiting for your opponent to move anyways, you should be thinking about the position.Play against other people on common online servers such as chess.com, lichess, chess24.
http://chesstempo.com/tactical-motifs.html
> 1 votes

# Answer
I would read "How to Beat Your Dad at Chess" first.

Step 2 would be able to verify that you know the following endings by heart:

* Q versus lone King
* R versus lone King
* K+P versus K
* K+2P versus K
* BB versus K
* The Lucena Position
* The Philidor Position

Then practice tactics. I recommend the book "The Manual of Chess Combinations" by Sergey Ivaschenko, volumes 1a and 1b.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Capablanca says: “In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else, for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame”

This is because to be able to judge a middlegame position, you need to know when it is advantageous to transition into an endgame.

"The Big Three"

1: Endgames 2: Tactics 3: Rudimentary openings

When you play, record your games, and review them with a stronger player. Fix your openings. Investigate strategic concepts as they come up in your middlegames (there will be many you are unfamiliar with). Play ideas, and don't get hung up on losing games. It happens, a lot.

You should forge ahead, then.
> 1 votes

# Answer
First look at a chess manual to learn the basics about strategy, openings and endings. It has been said that chess is 99% tactics (forks, pins, discovered attacks, etc.), so if you're only going to spend a limited amount of time studying, it would best be directed to those. This has to be combined with some play as well as subsequent analysis of your games to learn from your mistakes. This limited plan should more than suffice to make you competitive in a casual play environment.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Do you mean 1-2 hours/week *in addition to* playing, or *including* playing?

If *including* playing, I would suggest using most/all of your time playing. That's the most important thing, and you have so little time you can't afford to devote much of it to anything else.

Unfortunately, like you said, it will be tough to make much progress. Learning chess is a lot like learning a language. Imagine trying to learn a new language from scratch on 1 hour a week.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, beginner
---


# Question
Title: What's the problem with the Austrian Defense?
So, I looked on the lichess analysis board and played around with it for a while, and I couldn't find any reason why 2...c5 isn't considered an accurate response to 1 d4 d5 2 c4. Does anyone know why this is?

# Answer
After 3. cxd5, any sensical black response is met with 4. dxc5. The time it takes for black to regain those pawns is lost on white's development, e.g. 4... e6 5. e4! exd5 6. Bb5+ Nc6 (or Bd7 7. Bxd7 Qxd7 8. Nd2) 7. Nc3.

White's opened up the center - favorable because of black's daft, dithering development - and obtains a game with winning chances.
> -1 votes

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


# Question
Title: Using multiple chess engines for chess preparation
I've been told (but I don't understand) that it's a good idea to use a number of chess engine to analyze a chess opening. It this true? Why is this a good idea?)

# Answer
Chess engines use heuristics, i.e. they look at a position several moves ahead, and quantitatively evaluate the position using some criteria (the most straightforward example is to just count the pawns and pieces). The move that leads to the position with the highest score, assuming best play (according to the engine's heuristics) from both sides is the engine's best move.

So the evaluation of the position depends on the choice of heuristics. Different types of positions are best described by different heuristics. Different engines use different heuristics. Therefore, in an opening where several types of positions could arise, different engines may have different opinions on what the best move is. (I haven't tried this myself, but I'd bet the top 5 chess engines won't agree on 1.e4, 1.d4 or 1.c4)
> 1 votes

# Answer
I think that is someone's opinion. A few years ago (maybe more than few) I routinely beat some of the commercial chess engines. They are much better today, but facing a (skilled) human opponent is much more helpful. Although now a days, you're sure to get you butt handed to you if you play a quality engine on the most advanced levels.
> 0 votes

# Answer
If you have no human opponent to study , you have to choose the engines . But Firstly, you have to recognize the engines weakness and strengths . Like if you analyse some routine openings , it will be a bad decision. A complicated position or something like that needs the engine. Secondly, Some engines also fail to find a clear path in the complex middle game or end games . Like I tried to analyse a game of Dragon variation(Sicilian defense) But engine failed to find immediately a right path(with Houdini 4 and Komodo 6). So, you can study with two engines ( not more than that because that's not going to helpful for your study) , but it sometimes never helpful .
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, engines, study, preparation
---


# Question
Title: Is "Rdxd2" algebraic chess notation valid?
Is the algebraic notation `Rdxd2` valid?

If there is a problem with this notation, then how can it be corrected?

# Answer
If you have two rooks, standing on different files (one of them on the `d`-file), that could capture on `d2`, then `Rdxd2` is the correct notation.

If you have two rooks on the `d`-file, and both can take on `d2`, then use the rank number to disambiguate, for instance `R1xd2`.

This is according to the Algebraic System required by FIDE's Laws of Chess (see appendix C, paragraph C.10).

In the very, very rare case that you have more than two pieces of the same kind that can capture on the same square, it might be necessary to use both rank and file to disambiguate. This could theoretically be needed for queens, bishops and knights, but never for rooks. As Martin Bonner explains in the comments, for this to be necessary you would need to have a piece which is on the same rank as another of the same kind and the same file as a third of the same kind, and all three attack the same square. That is not possible with rooks.
> 18 votes

# Answer
There is no problem with this notation . Chess Board is divided into 1-8 ranks and a-h files .

When a Rook standing on different ranks and have one common attacking Square or same Piece then we use R(1-8) * Square number . eg of such moves are R7e3,R2e3 .

When Rook standing on different Files and have one common attacking Square or same Piece then we use R(a-h) * Square number. eg of such common moves when we are almost completing the Development Rad1,Rfe1.

You may even remove the asterisk in both cases .
> 0 votes

# Answer
If this notation is needed to differentiate between 2 rooks on the "d" file, then it is valid, If there's only one rook on the "d" file, it's not invalid, but redundant.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: notation, rooks
---


# Question
Title: Why is an isolated queen pawn so special?
Various articles and books mention the following advantages of having an isolani:

1. Better development
2. Outposts on e5 and c5
3. Constrained Black position

What I don't understand is how are the above mentioned advantages specific to isolani? Any side which gains centre control will get these advantages, right?

So back to the question, what makes isolani special? If I have an isolated pawn at some other file say c-file or e-file, the same rules will apply right? I'll still get the same advantages while having the disadvantage of being isolated.

# Answer
It is mainly so special because it can arise from many different openings, both open and closed, e.g. the Queen's Gambit, Nimzo-Indian, Caro-Kann and the Alapin variation of the Sicilian. It is simply *much more common* than a mirrored situation with an isolated pawn on e4, which would require exchanging the white f-pawn, which often stays on f2 to protect the king. In general, an early isolated pawn on the *n*-file requires an early n4 move by White and n5 by Black, followed by undermining pawn moves in the adjacent files. Those are most likely to happen on c-, d- and e- files.

An IKP (Isolated King's Pawn – an isolani is often called an IQP) would give the same advantages, but in addition:

* it would be harder to defend than an IQP
* assuming kingside castling, the half-open f-line would give White even more attacking chances, at the cost of being more exposed as well

A isolated c-pawn is even rarer, and has less influence on the center than a d- or e-pawn. All other things being equal, this is definitely a disadvantage for the side having an isolated pawn.

Hanging pawns are another commonly occurring structure where (potentially) weak pawns have compensation in the form of center control and space advantage.
> 14 votes

# Answer
The IQP is the most common so it is easiest to talk about all isolated pawns from this one example. Isolated pawns have rook support, on a half-open file, for the outposts, and they would be attacking a weakness (e6) if a pawn ever chased the Knight away. This would not be the case in the Stonewall where the e3 pawn blocks the rook's activity. The e5 outpost allows the knight to close to the opponent's king with possible attacks on f7 and g6. The c5 outpost allows for the knight to attack the queenside pawns and hampers the queen's bishop movement.

In Sicilians, black plays e5 to attack white's powerful center and may give white an isolated King's pawn and two outposts. These outposts are mostly balanced by black having an outpost on e5 or equal control of the center. The f-pawn can provide support for e5 and g5 outposts. Knights on these outposts usually provide great support for an attack, but moving the f-pawn weakens you own king position.

Even without it being an outpost, there are many sacrifices on d5 and f5. These are found in many Sicilians and Indian defenses. Since accepting these sacrifices bring about a ferocious attack, most black players try to refuse the pieces and make the square an honorary outpost.
> 6 votes

# Answer
An isolated queen pawn can be both a strength and a weakness. It's obviously a weakness in the sense that it can't be defended by other pawns but will require piece defense, potentially limiting their scope. If it's far enough advanced, it can be a strength as would any other advanced pawn, for its promotion potential. Since that would generally occur later in the game, its earlier liability will probably predominate until then.
> 2 votes

# Answer
An IQP is a great plus in the middlegame and it is a great minus in the endgame.

If you look at the games in database you, would find that as white the objective would be to give a centre break causing d4-\>d5. The pawn would be supported by rook on d1, bishop on b3 and knight on c3. This isolani attacks the e6 pawn and thereafter white gains a good attack on centre and black's K-side. After the exchange of the pawns from d5 to e6 white's pieces get very mobile. The IQP generally arises in QGA .

In the endgame the reverse happens. If the isolani is not exchanged in the middlegame then after all pieces are exchanged black's King takes the centre stage and occupies the d5 square and white's king is always on d3, e3 squares to hold on to the isolani. In extreme cases, white loses the d4 pawn and black wins the game at the end promoting one of the extra pawn to a queen.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, isolated-pawn
---


# Question
Title: How would you analyze this critical position from my most recent game?
```
 r1b2r2/1p2bp1k/p3p2p/2qnN3/2B4Q/2P3R1/PP3PPP/2K1R3 w - - 4 20

```

In the diagram position, I was white. I had sacrificed a bishop for a pawn for a huge attack on the black king. I realized during the game that this was a critical position and spent 40 minutes trying to make the tactics work, but I ran low on time and ended up failing at the task.

How should one go about analyzing this position to come up with the right move? Try to think about the position on your own before checking with an engine.

# Answer
These positions are good for a robotic approach, which is my favourite. I would try to come with candidate moves.

* First I would try to eliminate quickly (or find miracles in) Qxh6+ and Rg7+
* Then I would go for two more obvious checks, Bd3+ and Qe4+. I would try to get as much feeling about what's going on in these lines, find their problems to have chance to find (if necessary) some hidden properties of position (like Bd3+ is almost mate if we prevent black piece to go on f5.
* Then I would go for mate threats, trying to quickly eliminate Rg6. From point 2 I should already know that Nxf7 might be a mate threat, even if I can miss this for now and come with the move later during capture searches.
* I would go for captures and light threats, trying quickly to eliminate nonsense again. Probably here would be Qxe7, Rg8 and of course Nxf7, if not in the previous point. I guess Ng4 could stay hidden from my sight forever as the move came to my mind after writing the whole post. Engines wouldn't make such a mistake :-)

Depending on what would come from this search, which I think shouldn't take more than 5 minutes, I would try to sort candidates from the one I like the most. Well, Nxf7 is a big and obvious candidate. It threatens mate and after Rxf7 it is not even a sacrifice. So I would go for it, unless I would have even better feelings about checking lines Bd3+ or Qe4+. That is possible, as I would have already solid cover of these now. Ok, calculating Nxf7 is another story, you will do similar work like here. Find opponent's candidates, being careful, as your queen is hanging and you are a piece down. When I know only Rxf7 is serious, then I would go for Bd3+ and Qe4+ as a huge candidates. If I find some problem there, I would try to come with other candidates like Qg4. You probably don't search for all weird candidates in later moves of calculation, as your head could explode by doing that. That is a reason why we sometimes miss nice combinations. Always checks, mate threats and big captures and threats first in start position and then later, the less candidates.

In my answer to this question you can see the most brutal combination I could have in my game, but wasn't found during the game either by me, or by my opponent. Was cool to hear how lucky I am, as the computer saw it immediately. You look for calm moves in the beginning, but find the 4th calm move in a row in such a firefight!
> 4 votes

# Answer
Black is in a difficult situation after 1. Bd3! f5 2. Qg4. e.g. 2... Bf6? 3. Qg6+ Kh8 4. Qxh6#

It's clear that black is actually a piece down, too: His LSB (light-squared bishop) is asleep. Next, notice that the f7-f5 pawn push won't offer black any protection because of the pin the white bishop has set. Lastly, white has an open g-file and a well-positioned rook on it.

If you pick up Silman's *Reassess Your Chess Workbook* and do one problem each day with a time limit of an hour, these things will pop out like a dollar on the floor. I also recommend *Winning Chess Tactics* by Seirawan. As a final, but essential read, Vukovic's *Art of Attack* will fill your knowledge gaps with attacking ideas that instill fearlessness into your sacrifices.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: tactics, attack
---