# Question
Title: What is the optimal way to use Stockfish programmatically?
I have Stockfish compiled on my machine. Instead of just running the Stockfish program in the terminal, is it possible to interact with it in a separate program?

For example, some basic things I might want to do:

* Create a position object from a FEN.
* Get an evaluation from the position object (limiting with depth or time).
* Return an array of positions for all the legal moves from the position.

These are just some very basic examples. Can anyone supply some code snippets for these instructions? I'm really struggling to find any helpful documentation.

*EDIT*: It looks like this really has a two part solution. The first is piping the input/output to some external program. The second is understanding the UCI protocol to perform what I want to do. Does anyone know the UCI protocol for getting all of the possible moves/positions from a given position? Also, it looks like the 'eval' command only gives a static evaluation of a position (i.e. no consideration of the future). Is there anyway to retrieve a time/depth based evaluation as well?

# Answer
I think you're talking about how to fork a process for the engine and how to use it for the UCI protocol.

What you need to do is:

1. Fork a new child process for the Stockfish engine
2. Send and receive UCI commands to/from the engine
3. Parse the UCI commands yourself

Do you want to study existing source code? Look at:

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=57770

Download **Chess Game Analyzer**, it's a simple Python script for automatic annotation.

When you have the source code, look at the the following:

```
 p = subprocess.Popen(engineName, stdin=subprocess.PIPE,
                     stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
                     stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)

```

This line creates a new process for the engine, where `engineName` is the path of the engine executive.

```
p.stdin.write("uci\n")

```

This line sends the `uci` command to the engine.

```
for eline in iter(p.stdout.readline, '')

```

This line parses a UCI response.
> 1 votes

# Answer
> Can anyone supply some code snippets for these instructions? I'm really struggling to find any helpful documentation.

Since you say you need to manipulate chess data structures programmatically, you might find the kind of specific programming guidance you want at the ***Chess Programming Wiki***.

It links to the ***Universal Chess Interface standard***, which Stockfish uses to interface to the chess GUI or other program you're using/writing.
> 1 votes

# Answer
As for the first part, I have been using Perl and the IPC::Open2 package successfully for running Stockfish programmatically. http://perldoc.perl.org/IPC/Open2.html

As for the UCI way to "get all possible moves", you need to set the "multiPV" parameter to some large value (99?), causing the engine to calculate and report a value for every possible move.

As for making the engine calculate (and report), you use the "go" command.

Try it first interactively from the console to get an idea of what the output looks like, so you can intelligently parse it with your program.
> 1 votes

# Answer
As of June 24, 2021 when I am drafting this answer, I can guarantee to anyone that the above accepted answer is no longer true. The above provided ".zip" file no longer works. Hence, I seek and I found.

The optimal way is here. It is fully programmable, even your grandma can do it.
> 0 votes

# Answer
The easiest way is to use the python-chess library.

First, download Stockfish from here and unzip it.

Second, install the library with `pip install chess`

Then follow the example of the engine communication page:

```
import chess
import chess.engine

engine = chess.engine.SimpleEngine.popen_uci(r"C:\Users\xxxxx\Downloads\stockfish_14_win_x64\stockfish_14_win_x64_avx2.exe")

board = chess.Board()
while not board.is_game_over():
    result = engine.play(board, chess.engine.Limit(time=0.1))
    board.push(result.move)

engine.quit()

```

engine.analyze() will give you more information.

```
import chess
import chess.engine

engine = chess.engine.SimpleEngine.popen_uci("/usr/bin/stockfish")

board = chess.Board()
info = engine.analyse(board, chess.engine.Limit(time=0.1))
print("Score:", info["score"])
# Score: PovScore(Cp(+20), WHITE)

board = chess.Board("r1bqkbnr/p1pp1ppp/1pn5/4p3/2B1P3/5Q2/PPPP1PPP/RNB1K1NR w KQkq - 2 4")
info = engine.analyse(board, chess.engine.Limit(depth=20))
print("Score:", info["score"])
# Score: PovScore(Mate(+1), WHITE)

engine.quit()

```

The Board class constructor accepts a fen= parameter to set a custom FEN.

Use board.legal\_moves to get a list of all legal moves from the current position.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, programming
---


# Question
Title: What engine evaluation does the average randomly generated legal position have?
Would it be accurate to expect a random legal position to tend to evaluate to a white advantage? How does the distribution of evaluations look like?

# Answer
Given a legal position, the same position with colors swapped (and rows mirrored) is legal, apart from a very small number of exceptions like the position after `1.a3`. So the average evaluation must be very close to 0.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines, statistics
---


# Question
Title: Why is Bxf2+ a blunder in the Traxler Counterattack,?
I'm asking more about why a specific move is called a blunder. If you're playing as black, and white uses the Fried Liver attack, when you use the Bishop and do Bxf2+, Stockfish on Chess.com says that's a blunder. I'm curious as to why. I know it's (probably) giving up a valuable bishop, but White's King playing Kxf2 allows for Qh4 (thus removing the Queen from the threat of the rook on f7), and also possibly puts pressure on white's Bishop on c4.

Is it a blunder *solely* because there's no equal or greater exchange? Is it something else?

# Answer
After **1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5**, now **4....Bc5** is a mistake by Black. If White goes **5. Nxf7** then following up with **5...Bxf2+** is the best move in that position, so definitely far from a blunder. Maybe the engine is running at a low depth or you may have made some error when inserting the position.

Anyway engines don't classify moves as "blunders", they just return a number as the position's evaluation. chess.com classifies moves according to those numbers into different categories (blunder, brilliant move, inaccuracy and so on...) but you shouldn't pay too much attention to those since they're arbitrary categorizations of something that exists on a continuum.
> 8 votes

# Answer
There is much inconsistency in the way this question is posed. The Fried Liver is associated with 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd Nxd5 6. Nxf7 (a sacrifice) The Traxler is associated with 4.Ng5 Bc5 and now perhaps 5. Nxf7 (a grab of material) In the first case Bxf2+ is not possible, so OP must be asking about the second case, when 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ has always been regarded as the correct play and White usually declines with 6.Kf1.

The alternative in the Traxler of 5.Bxf7+ has always been regarded as safer although not necessarily stronger. Beliavsky held the resulting position against both Karpov and Anand, drawing with Karpov and even winning when Anand blundered. AFIK, theory has not yet spoken the last word.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: blunder, traxler-counter-attack
---


# Question
Title: What are the rules of Glinski's Hexagonal Chess?
Wladyslaw "Bill" Glinski was a Pole who came to London immediately after the end of WW2. He developed what is probably the most popular version of hexagonal chess, a variant played on an hexagonal board made up of hexagonal cells. He introduced the game to the world in the early 70's.

What are the rules?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The game is played on a board which is the shape of a regular hexagon made up of hexagons with 6 cells to a side. Because three cells meet in a point three colours are required to colour the board and so each side needs three bishops instead of two.

The initial setup of the pieces is like this:

As you can see there are 11 files assigned letters "a" through "l" excluding the letter "j". The files are not all the same length. Files "a" and "l" are only 6 cells long while file "f" is 11 cells long.

The way the pieces move is intuitively obvious to most square-players.

The bishops move along the "diagonals" like so:

Rooks move along the ranks and files like so:

And the queen combines rook and bishop moves like so:

The king moves like the queen only one cell at a time and the knight moves to the closest cells the queen can't go to:

Pawns move forwards like rooks on files but rather than capture like bishops they capture like rooks on ranks. They can move two cells on the first move forward and if their first move is an "inward" capture that leaves them on the starting cell for another same coloured pawn then they retain the right to move two cells on the next move forward. This removes the need to remember where a pawn started life. An "outward" capture removes this right.

As in the "square" variant when a pawn reaches the furthermost cell on a file then it "promotes" to a piece. Similarly en passant works in the same way. If a pawn moves two cells forward skipping over a cell where it could have been taken by an enemy pawn then the enemy pawn may on the next move only capture the pawn en passant as if it had only moved one cell.

Here is a pawn summary:

The king is highly mobile and in any case there is no real hiding place so there is no castling.

Stalemate is not a draw. Instead the player delivering stalemate receives 0.75 points and the stalemated receives 0.25.

Otherwise games can be drawn in the usual ways:

* agreement
* 3 fold repetition
* 50 moves with no pawn moves or captures
* insufficient material

Because of the richer move possibilities and the pawn differences it is very difficult to get blocked positions where there is mating material but the remaining pieces can't get at each other.

Other interesting differences from the square variant are:

* all the pieces can triangulate. That is a piece can be protecting another piece and move in a different direction and still be protecting the same piece.
* knights are worth a bit more than bishops. Two knights can mate with the king's help but three bishops are needed

---
Tags: rules, chess-variants, hexagonal-chess
---


# Question
Title: Why does Stockfish evaluate this position as completely lost?
After thinking for a minute my copy of Stockfish evaluates the position below as +4.7 for white. Why does the computer hate black's position so much?

I know that all things being equal, black should be worse having only a rook for two minor pieces, but black at least has an active queen and white's pieces are all on the back rank. After the simplification **1.axb5 axb5 2.Rxa8 Rxa8** the computer still gives an evaluation of +3. Why does black have no hope to defend this position?

```
[FEN "r4rk1/2p2ppp/p7/1p1q4/P7/3P4/1PP2PPK/RNBQ4 w - - 0 16"]
[StartFlipped "1"]

```

For example, after playing out my engine's PV I wind up in the following endgame; presumably I should be to easily see that it is winning for white? (Indeed, the engine seems to say white is winning even if both of white's e-pawns are taken off the board.)

```
[FEN "3rr1k1/2p2ppp/p7/8/Pp1P4/3PB3/1P2NPP1/R5K1 b - - 0 22"]
[StartFlipped "1"]

```

# Answer
You are aware that two minor pieces are superior to a Rook in a naive point count but you don't seem to realise why this is so. It is simply that if I attack something with two pieces that you can only defend with one Rook then I can just take it anyway. On the other hand, if a Pawn is attacked by two Rooks, it can be securely defended by just one minor piece. The correct way for White to play is to identify targets that can be exploited in this fashion. And these exist here because Blacks pawns are exposed on the Q-side.

In the first position you note that Black has an active Queen (but no targets and no partners) and Whites pieces are still on the back rank (but with immediate access to stable and influential squares). Present dispositions are only meaningful as they relate to future prospects.

Lets start from your second position and give Black the move. There is still nothing active for Black to do. 1..a5 has the merit of preventing a5 by White, which would artificially isolate Blacks b-pawn. Then 2.Rc1 Rd7 3.Rc5 Ra8 leaves both Rooks passive. After 4.Nc1 and 5.Nb3 the Pa5 is lost. Say 4..Kf8 5.Nb3 Ke8 6.Nxa5 (Better than 6.Rxa5 because it does not allow Black to trade off a useless Rook) ..Kd8 7.b3 and now Nc6 and Rc4 will pick up the Pb4. The role played by the second minor piece (Be3) in this is to completely deny Black any counterplay.

This is good enough to win, but White can very likely win the Pc7 as well. Play the K to c4, N t0 d5, B to f4 etc. As Hauke says, plus infinity.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, evaluation, middlegame, defense, minor-pieces
---


# Question
Title: A complex eight pieces opposite color Bishop endgame
The position, derivated by a variation of the Alechkine Defense, Four Pawns Attack, is the following:

```
[FEN "3b4/8/1k2B3/6pK/P7/8/6PP/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

Black to move. Stockfish 14.1 NNUE gives White +1.70 but White can make no progress as far as I can see. May someone try with either a software with tablebases incorporated (mine is not) or FinalGen give me a clue? It is really a draw or the win is simply very distant?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Actually, this is fairly easy to analyze with some tablebase help.

First of all, it is obvious White must make a second free pawn to "scissor" Black. There are exactly two options:

1.g3 any 2.h4 gxh4 3.gxh4. Now White has TWO edge pawns. Immediately we see Black is set up totally wrong: the king must hold the h-pawn, which is the "wrong" one (queening on the non-bishop color) and the bishop, if necessary, sacrifice against the a-pawn.

Playing a few pass moves before the exchange on h4, we see that Black should not idle too much: After gxh4, the game is won for White with the K on, say, a7, as even a 6-piecer verifies. But b6 suffices.

Much more dangerous is playing 1.g4 any 2.h4 gxh4 3.g5. This endgame is won if White can capture the h pawn before it runs and deflects the bishop from the defense of the a pawn. Which means Black should position the king on b4 (where it attacks the pawn and is closest to the king side if White changes mind). But a5 is OK too. White can play g3 first to have the option h4 like in the first variant, but even with Ka5, it is draw as the "on-the-fly" attack on the Bd7 (only square - otherwise in variant 2 either the Pa4 is not protected or the black h-pawn runs) gets Black another tempo.

Coda: Draw with precise play from Black (play Ka5-b4-a5 ad nauseam; if variant 2, h3 draws immediately, if variant 1, run for your life to the kingside - if White manages a setup Kg6/Bc4 before Black played Kg8, win).

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, evaluation, bishop-endgame
---


title: Top sources for opening theory

text:
# Question
Title: Top sources for opening theory
Can anyone recommend any good sources such as periodicals, websites, or what not to stay up to date on the latest opening theory? I am willing to pay if the source requires such. How do the top Grandmasters stay up to date on the latest theory?

# Answer
The top players in the world keep up with theory by actually looking at the latest games to be played. Every week, Mark Crowther collects all available games and prepares them in downloadable format here: http://www.theweekinchess.com/.

For players who can't look at a new move and instantly tell the ideas behind it (pretty much everyone below FIDE 2600), there is the Chess Informant: http://www.chessinformant.rs/. It comes out 4 times a year and has been in publication since 1966. It won't keep you nearly as current as checking the TWIC games every week but it will at least have someone to explain the moves to you.
> 16 votes

# Answer
Another high quality source of opening analysis is the New in Chess Yearbook series. It also appears four times a year with hundreds of pages on the newest opening theory.
> 9 votes

# Answer
As already said, top GM keep up with the theory by simply looking at the games played. In think the sources provided by @Cleveland are excellent, and just in case you may want to keep up to the games live, the chess website ChessBomb follows the main events being played on the planet.

Another source for top opening preparation could be the "Master's Bulletin". This is a monthly magazine issued by the website Chess.com, featuring top GMs explaining their ideas and modern repertoires. It covers other areas of chess, but the opening is certainly the more treated. You may find the different issues here and the full list here. In that last link, some of the first issues are free, check them out and see if they meet your expectations on top preparation.

For tournament play, I find the useful website 365chess.com more than enough. You only need to get registered to benefit from around 3M games (the Big Database), organised by the popularity of the move made. This is not the latest theory though, as some relatively old lines are now out of favour at the top, but still have more played games in total than the modern ones. For the latest theory, you may want to become a supporter of the site (only one time is enough for full access) and get access to the Masters Database, where only games with both players over 2400 are included (and most are not included on the other).

The same idea as the Masters Database can be found on the webpage Chessgames.com. By being a registered member (which is free) you have access to a depth of around 12 moves, and have to become premium for the full depth. On this website you can also access the "Chess Games Collection" tab and look for a certain opening.

**Update:** ChessBomb has now been bought by Chess.com. It will be missed. Chess.com has also discontinued the "Master's Bulletin". It will be missed.
> 7 votes

# Answer
There is a paid journal at http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/ with different specialists monitoring different openings (this is sometimes referred in bibliography of chess books).

Chess evolution also has GM analysis: http://chess-evolution.com/

For game collections, also ChessOk, delivers small chunks free every month: http://chessok.com/?page\_id=694

Also the GM Repertoire from Quality Chess, has many original analysis: http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/

Now, Since I am far from GM, I would also recommend as useful the Move by Move, Starting opening x series, and others from Everymanchess, http://www.everymanchess.com/
> 5 votes

# Answer
Chessable is a great website for opening theory for both beginners and experienced players. Various masters create new and fresh opening courses which might not have been analyzed deeply before. It has free and paid courses, and paid courses are usually really big and comprehensive. Some paid courses also has free demo versions which allows you to see the opening choices of the author and decide if you want to learn more deeply about it. (I said courses but they are like interactive books.)

The website tries helping you to learn by offering a system where you need to repeat your studies daily/weekly. It is similar to Woodpecker method if you are familiar to it. However, you do not have to do these repetitions like me and use the site as if it is a library and you can check openings from time to time whenever you need them.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory
---


# Question
Title: Why don't chess engines take into account the time left by each player?
Firstly, I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong the way engines are implemented at the moment, by analyzing only the current position regardless of time left by the players. This is great and it gives us a nearly perfect estimation of the position.

To the best of my knowledge, current engines do not take into account the time left by the players in a game when analyzing a position.

When I am watching an online transmission of a chess championship match, when the players get low on time it is very common for commentators to state "Ohh, I don't think \<player\> will find this move with only 10 seconds on the clock!", when there's only one move in the position that it is really hard to find (hence would require more thinking time that they do not have). Maybe I am on the minority here, but I think it would be interesting to have a separate evaluation by an engine that takes into account the time left.

---

My questions are: Is there such an evaluation out there? Are there any downsides when taking into account time or something that makes this calculation impossible to do?

# Answer
I imagine someone could go through a bunch of GM games that have time information included and do some sort of statistical analysis to correlate time with win probability for a given evaluation. It could never be perfect, but neither are traditional engine evaluations or ratings or anything else you'd use to predict the outcome of a game.

But to make it reasonably accurate you'd also have to account for things like player strengths and material left on the board and known-drawn positions (a 0.0 evaluation coming out of a nonstandard opening and a 0.0 evaluation in an opposite-colored-bishops endgame with one pawn on each side are very different when it comes to win probability.) You'd probably want to check whether there's one narrow path to victory or multiple moves which could all do the job. You might also have to account for things like whether it's OTB or online; 10 seconds left to convert a won position when you have to physically hit a clock is way different from when you can use a mouse and can premove.

It's mostly a question of whether someone is willing to put forth the effort to do all of this. Exactly how badly do we want to know the odds of one imperfect human beating another in a given situation?
> 5 votes

# Answer
> Why don't chess engines take into account the time left by each player?

For the simple reason that there is no way of knowing how to do that.

A few years ago a clubmate rated about 1800 playing in the British Universities blitz (3+2) championships reached a KNB v K endgame. He knew the endgame and so blitzed out the win. I have other clubmates rated 2100+ who don't know that endgame and would not be able to checkmate in such period of time. Give them 20 minutes on the clock and they still might not succeed. There have been cases of IMs failing to do this at regular time controls.

In short it is an impossible task.
> 27 votes

# Answer
Because engines find the best move by assuming best play, not by hoping their opponent makes an inferior move.

If you constructed an engine whose sole purpose was to beat a specific person/engine, then "likelihood to play a given bad move" could make sense as an evaluation parameter. But otherwise it's a waste of time to calculate something that would ultimately lead to the engine playing weaker moves.
> 20 votes

# Answer
This is an exposition of BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft's answer, which is correct. Given the option between making 1) the objectively strongest move and 2) the one against which the best move is "really hard to find", would you really rather an engine make move #2?

Let's say you make move #2. If opponent doesn't find it, congrats, you win. If opponent does - then what? Did you just throw away your winning chances? Did you just go from losing to lost? If the answer to either of the above is "yes", not only should an engine not make that move, a human should not make that move either!

Example:

```
[FEN "3r2k1/2pqnpp1/1p5p/p2P4/P2p1rP1/2P1N3/1PQ2PP1/3RR1K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. g3 dxe3 2. gxf4 Qxg4+

```

This position is from Nepomniatchi-Carlsen, World Chess Championship 2021. It is dead equal - 0.00 eval according to Stockfish. Stockfish's main line begins with 1. Rxd4 and leads to a draw. However, Nepo played 1. g3. Now when a piece comes under attack, the first inclination is to move it. Accordingly, the first move Carlsen is likely to look at is 1...Rf6. Look a bit further though, and Black will notice that 1...dxe3 wins (since 2. gxf4? Qxg4+ followed by a rook lift is a decisive attack).

**Would you really rather an engine play 1. g3 instead of 1. Rxd4?** Phrased alternatively, would you rather get a sure draw, or a "maybe" win that is a guaranteed loss if opponent sees the key move? Think about it. Nobody - engine or human - should prefer the latter.

That said: engines do have a measure of how complex the current position is. If the engine believes it is stronger than its opponent, then it will try to steer the game towards more complex positions. Inferior opposition is more likely to blunder in those positions. That's how engines exploit their opponents.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Stockfish has 'wtime' and 'btime' options, that get it to calculate as if white and black only have such and such time left. However, in cases you're mentioning where human players only have a few seconds to find a move, even here Stockfish would most likely find the move under these wtime & btime constraints.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Position evaluation by an engine is completely objective. Put any 2 players in a given position and the eval is the same. Once you add the clock into the equation the evaluation becomes different depending on who the player is. The objective evaluation becomes a subjective evaluation which no longer has any concrete meaning.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Let me chime in too. The OP's question is really two in one, which were conflated a bit in the discussion.

a) HOW can you implement it?

b) WHY should you implement it?

I see no reason why a) should be impossible. For example, the reknowned game-theory primer "Winning Ways..." gives a clear mathematical notion how "hot" a game is. You can come up with more metrics - the depth and with of the decision tree, how "easy" a winning move is etc. This will get very tricky and as always is probably easier done quick-and-dirty, but why not?

But I see a problem with b). What is the "use case" of doing all the work? Computer vs Computer? Surely not. Computer vs Human? Aw cmon, they annihilate you anyway :-) This leaves: training. I'm just reading the "Complete Chess Swindler", many games have been blundered in time trouble and someone like me who plays lightning fast *will* use it against you! Surely it can't hurt if you train finding the best move under time strain. But even in this case, I think pre-chosen positions are much more effective in training than random played games.

Thus my verdict is: Nice-to-have feature, but lousy ROI to make one doing the programming work.
> 0 votes

# Answer
because it adds another variable which exponentially increases the number of calculations needed, so it wouldn't be able to calculate to as much of a depth as without it.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, evaluation, time-management
---


# Question
Title: Why is there a clear difference in master's and other player' opening choice?
For example, based on the database at lichess, after 1. e4, 46.3% of the master games continue with 1... c5 while only 23.4% of all games continue with 1... c5 (31.7% continue with 1... e5).

Another example: after 1. e4, the response 1... d5 (9.9%) is the fourth most popular response for all players, but for masters, 1... d5 (2.0%) is only the seventh most popular response.

What makes some openings more popular in master's games and less popular in lower-level games?

# Answer
Amateurs will sometimes be happy to accept a slightly worse position if that gets them a position they're familiar with or enjoy playing more than other lines. There's also the surprise factor. A 1600 Elo player will probably not know any lines too deep into the Scandinavian, but a professional player will definitely have something prepared.

There are also other positions one would never reach without prior knowledge (think for instance the lines in the Scheveningen Sicilian where Black goes ...e6 followed by ...e5 only one or two moves later).

Finally, if we're including all the way down to beginner level, "copycat" tends to be some sort of default, so you'll see a lot more of 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 than among people who have made a conscious choice to build an opening repertoire.
> 2 votes

# Answer
On average, masters have played/studied chess for longer, and their experience informs them on which moves are better (and/or more suited to their playing style). If you've spent years analyzing openings with databases and engines, and also had years to experiment with these openings in tournaments, you will play better moves than the average person.
> 1 votes

# Answer
There is another difference between lichess's masters and big databases. How confounding a factor it is, I don't venture to guess. But the masters database contains games from the 1950s onwards. The big database of games played on lichess will only have recent games. Some lines will be more prevalent in the masters database because they used to be popular but have now gone out of fashion.

Some more stats of counts of games:

M: Lichess's masters DB. L: lichess's DB of lichess games

1 e4 e5 M:237371,L:121111111

* 2 f4 M:4524(1.9%),L:10079474(8.3%)

1 e4 e6 M:137862,L:44861818

* 2 Nf3 M:2343(1.9%),L:10995864(24.5%)

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 M:88226,L:3043740

* 4 ... Nf6 M:79648,L:1991088
* 4 ... d6 M:5278(6.0%),L:211529(6.9%)
* 4 ... b5 M:822(0.9%),L:599425(19.7%)
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, statistics, 1.e4
---


# Question
Title: What was so special about the incremental "Digital Chess clock" that a patent was granted to Bobby Fischer for the same?
Bobby Fischer had 'invented' a way of incrementing some time duration with every chess move(s) played. This was quite new in that era. But was that so unique that a patent was granted for it?
Here are those patent details of "Digital Chess clock".

# Answer
> was that so unique that a patent was granted for it?

According to patent law, yes. There was no device in common use that did that and no previous similar patent had been filed. Hence his idea was patentable. You can't patent fire because it has been around in everyday use long before patents. Similar for steam engines. Patents only last for a relatively short period to allow you time to put your idea into production.

What was so special about the digital clock is something else, or rather several things.

The first is fairness and a better game. Every time you make a move you get a bit more time to make your next move. You only lose on time if you take too much time on your last move.

It is also much better for the equipment. Players no longer feel the need to hit the clock as quickly as possible to save that fraction of a second which might allow them to make an additional move.

It also takes the arbiters out of deciding the game when one player claims a draw with less than 2 minutes left on the clock. In the absence of cheating or unsportsmanlike behaviour it is always best and fairest if the game is devided by the play of the two players.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: history, time-control, fischer, chess-clocks
---


# Question
Title: What does double-check mean in four-player chess on chess.com?
The rule says: **Delivering a double-check is worth +5, and triple-checks are worth +15**

Is a double check when I am

* checking two players at one move
* checking one player with a normal double check
* checking a player that is already under check

Counting that there is a "triple check" either the rule one or three should be true because you can not give a triple check to one player by only your move. However, I am not sure if there are points for the normal double-check.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Double Check in 4 man chess basically means checking two kings in one move. Same goes for triple check.

PS. It's not worth the points so don't go for it unless you win because of it.

# Answer
> 4 votes
## Double Check

As @A.Shetye has pointed out, Double check means checking two kings at once in your single move.

More discussion on the topic is mentioned in this chess.com post - Double and triple checks 4pc

## Double Checkmate

Well, in fact, in 4-player chess, you can even "Double Checkmate" your opponents. Have a look at a recent game I've played. I've checkmated both the kings at once xD

Here's the game link - https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/31704333/154/4

---
Tags: chess-variants, check
---


# Question
Title: Is it the case that in practice making moves only decreases your positional score according to computers?
It occurred to me that presumably every chess engine's score is based on the best available continuation move, and thus every *other* move must be worse (or at least no better).

i.e. if there were a move that the engine could immediately assess as being higher-scored than the computer's chosen move, then that would in fact *be* the engine's chosen move, and thus would be reflected in the engine's score of this position.

If all that is true, then I conclude that (in terms of position scores) Human Games consist of each side making moves which always either maintain or lower their score. i.e you only increase your score on your opponents turn, when they make sub-optimal moves.

i.e. from a computer's p.o.v. a human chess game is contest of two players making moves to see who can lose positional points the least.

Is this roughly accurate?

In particular, this:

> you only increase your score on your opponents turn, when they make sub-optimal moves.

# Answer
In that sense an engine's evaluation is not than different from an evaluation made by a human player who is much stronger than you.

If engines were "perfect", then yes, every move you make can only maintain or worsen the evaluation before the move (note also that in this world where engines are perfect the only possible evaluations are "White wins", "Draw" and "Black wins").

However, real-world engines aren't perfect. They can only analyze a position up to a certain depth. So it's totally possible that the engine evaluates a certain position as +0.5, then make a move and after the engine evaluates the new position, the score goes up.

The same can happen when you make the engine's best move though. In the same example of a position being valued as +0.5, if you follow the top engine moves until the end of the game, it won't stay as +0.5 forever (it's either gonna be a win or a draw, or, in case the engine got it totally wrong, perhaps even a loss).

Add to that the fact that engine evaluations are not set in stone even for a given position. The specific version engine you're using, the hardware it's running on, the time you've let the engine analyze and so on will have an impact on the number you get.
> 24 votes

# Answer
The answer is "no" and an example (+ detailed explanation) is given here. The brief explanation is that the depth the engine is looking at matters, and making one more move changes the depth the engine searches the main line.

You can find more examples looking at engine games. In this game, Stockfish evaluated the position after 8. Bxf6 as +1.76, then after the obvious recapture 8...Bxf6 its evaluation dropped to +1.40.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, analysis
---


# Question
Title: What are the White plans in this "copycat" line in the Jobava London?
In the last round of last month's 4th EJCOA IM Norm tournament this interesting game was played. White plays the Jobava London and Black plays the "copycat" line with 4...Bf5. Black then plays a manoeuvre to exchange queens. The engine doesn't like it that much but it's understandable against someone rated almost 200 points higher. The problem after that is that White seemed to play planlessly and Black punished him.

What should White's plan(s) be after the queen exchange? It seems to me that White's pieces don't end up on good squares. What setup should White be aiming for?

```
[Title "Tim Wall (2290) vs Matthew Wadsworth (2467) 4th EJCOA IM Norm 2022"]
[fen ""]
[Startply "21"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bf4 c6 4. e3 Bf5 5. f3 e6 6. g4 Bg6 7. h4 h5 8. g5 Ng8 9. Qd2 Bd6 10. Bxd6 Qxd6 11. Qh2 Qxh2 12. Rxh2 Nd7 13. O-O-O Ne7 14. e4 a6 15. Bh3 b5 16. Re2 Nb6 17. Ree1 b4 18. Nb1 a5 19. Nd2 a4 20. Ne2 O-O 21. Nf4 Rfd8 22. Nf1 b3 23. Kb1 dxe4 24. fxe4 e5 25. Nxg6 Nxg6 26. c3 Nf4 27. Re3 Nc4 28. Rf3 a3 0-1

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
The setup with `14.e4` was the correct choice by White as it prevents Nd7-f5 hitting the h4 weakness and restrains the light bishop's activity.

The error was `15.Bh3` because it wastes a tempo by misplacing the bishop in the h3 square, whose active diagonal c8-h3 can be neutralised by evacuating the pieces as in the game.

Instead, the most accurate play for White (according to the engine and my understanding) was to play Nge2 (quickly eyeing the f4 square from where we hit the g6 bishop), and only after Black long castles, then Bh3 is effective.

With this setup, **if Black follows the same plan**, we reach a long-term comfortable position for White with a superior bishop:

```
[Title "Tim Wall (2290) vs Matthew Wadsworth (2467) 4th EJCOA IM Norm 2022"]
[fen ""]
[Startply "21"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bf4 c6 4. e3 Bf5 5. f3 e6 6. g4 Bg6 7. h4 h5 8. g5 Ng8 9. Qd2 Bd6 10. Bxd6 Qxd6 11. Qh2 Qxh2 12. Rxh2 Nd7 13. O-O-O Ne7 14. e4 a6 15. Nge2 b5 (15... O-O-O 16. Bh3) 16. Nf4 b4 17. Na4 dxe4 18. Nxg6 Nxg6 19. fxe4

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
First one could debate White's decision to exchange queens. Since the Black king has no perfect shelter (the short castle has being weakened by ...h5) White might have had better attacking chance in a middlegame.

After the queen exchange, I think the plan with e4 was completely misguided. It weakens several dark squares, the Bg2/Bh3 still doesn't find employment and White doesn't have enough ressources to pressure d5 nor to create threats on the e-file.

*edit: the other answer correctly mentions that e4 is meant to prevent ...Nf5. That reinforces my feeling that Qh2 wasn't adequate...*

Much more logical would have been to eventually play f4, paying respect to Capablanca's rule about putting pawns on squares of different color from one's bishop. Then White can play for space by bring a knight on e5 (very London-like).

But beforehand I would complete development and probe the target on h5 with 14.Nge2, heading for g3 or f4. The idle Nc3 should probably be redirected to g3/f4 as well, and Bd3 (or sometimes Be2/Bh3) intending cd3 if Black exchanges bishops, followed by f4, Nf3-e5, and rook(s) on the c-file, is another possible ressource.

White has a slight advantage (space counts) but Black remains very solid.

---
Tags: strategy, london-system
---


title: UCI Play Colors

text:
# Question
Title: UCI Play Colors
How do I get the color the engine should play? My minimax function requires color to return the best move for that color. I'm using uci protocol, but I'm looking at the docs and cannot find anything that mentions color.

# Answer
The engine receives a position command.

#### Example 1:

```
position startpos

```

In startpos, the side to move is white.
The startpos is just equal to a fen:
`rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1`
This is equivalent to:

```
position fen rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

```

#### Example 2:

```
position fen rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 1

```

The **b** before KQkq is the side to move. That means it is black.

#### Example 3:

```
position startpos moves e2e4

```

The side to move is **black** because from startpos there is a white move e2e4.

#### Example 4:

```
position fen rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 1 moves c7c5 g1f3 d7d6

```

The side to move is white.

### References
> 4 votes

---
Tags: programming, uci, python
---


title: Is chess a sport? If yes, then why?

text:
# Question
Title: Is chess a sport? If yes, then why?
Sometimes (e.g. at some schools) chess is considered to be a sport. Is chess a sport? I view sport as a physical activity.

For instance, if a doctor asks you "Are you doing any sports?" would your answer "Yes, I play chess twice a week!"? It sounds a bit strange in my ears.

Is chess a sport?\`

If yes, then why and to what extent?

Thanks!

# Answer
> 13 votes
The question of whether chess is a sport depends entirely on the context of the question. In certain situations, it may be useful to classify chess as a sport. For example, as you mention, in some schools chess is considered a sport because it matches the requirements of a sport in that context - an activity that pupils can engage in outside of academic learning that essentially keeps them out of trouble. Yet in other contexts, as when sport means to exercise some muscle group or improve fitness or some physical ability, chess would not typically be considered a sport.

On a deeper, philosophical level, the question is meaningless. "Sport" has no objective, unambiguous definition, it is a cultural concept that changes in meaning depending on time, culture, fashion and many other factors.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Early on, chess is clearly just a game, but as you advance competitively, its character changes. For me, that change happened when I was about 1800-2000.

I was a ranked (state, not nationally) junior tennis player in the early 1970's, so I know what a sport feels like, and master-level chess takes just as much out of me as tennis did when I was a kid. Part of that is because I cannot sit still, and thus, I walk around a lot between moves, but most of it is just the tension.

In addition, the competitive day in chess is longer than most other sports. It is not uncommon for round one to start at 9 a.m., and sometimes I finish the second game at 10 p.m. at night.

Just because you do not run a 100-yard dash during the game, that does not mean that your body is not working harder physically, even though you cannot see it overtly. During the first Karpov vs Kasparov match during 1984-1985, Karpov, not a big man to begin with, lost 22 pounds during the course of the 5-month match due to the stress and other factors. They said he looked like "death" at the end of the match.

In a recent ESPN article on Fabiano Caruana, they noted "In October 2018, Polar, a U.S.-based company that tracks heart rates, monitored chess players during a tournament and found that 21-year-old Russian grandmaster Mikhail Antipov had burned 560 calories in two hours of sitting and playing chess -- or roughly what Roger Federer would burn in an hour of singles tennis."

They also said this, which is phenomenal: "a chess player can burn up to 6,000 calories a day while playing in a tournament."

So, while the tennis burned more calories, the chess certainly was no slouch in that regard, and we play a lot longer. If chess is not a physical sport, even if it is not obvious, why is fitness so important? It would not be if it were not a sport. Mental exertion, clearly, also manifests itself physically.

# Answer
> 2 votes
According to Wikipedia, sport is defined as follows

> Sport (or sports) is all forms of usually competitive physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical ability and skills while providing entertainment to participants, and in some cases, spectators.\[2\] Hundreds of sports exist, from those requiring only two participants, through to those with hundreds of simultaneous participants, either in teams or competing as individuals.

According to Google definition

> Sport is an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.

Thus, it seems to boil down to whether chess is a physical activity and skill. To begin with, as far as I know, the majority of the world's population does not regard chess as a sport but rather as a board game. Yet, when focusing on the skill set required to be great at chess, the physical factors are significant. Perhaps not as much the actual motion of moving the pieces and pressing the chess clock. Although there is a certain skill in executing your moves quickly and flawlessly. Yet more in terms of physical endurance. The ability to stay focused and sharp for a long period of time (e.g. 6 hours). The ability to make 40 or more good decisions during that time span. The mind set to win the game. There is also an undeniable amount of entertainment in top level chess!

My answer is that chess can be defined as a sport. But it is not considered to be a sport, because it is a board game, and board games are not associated to sports.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I would argue that chess is *not* a sport, since it doesn't require anything more than the absolute minimum of physical co-ordination. In fact, it doesn't even require that – one can perfectly well play by announcing one's moves and having somebody else move the physical pieces.

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov is annoyed that curling, often referred to as "chess on ice", is included in the Olympics but chess isn't. I'd argue that the fundamental difference is that, in curling, somebody who has never played before wouldn't be able to figure out what "move" to play and wouldn't be able to execute that "move" even if told exactly where to put the stone; in chess, a novice has no idea what move to make but, if Magnus Carlsen tells them "Put the queen on that square", they could do that without any difficulty.

On the other hand, administratively, it often makes sense to classify chess as a sport. For example, the International Olympic Committee includes FIDE on its list of recognized sporting federations. And it would probably make sense for an organization that funds sports for children to fund chess too, since playing chess has many of the benefits of any individual sport on a child's development, with the obvious exception of physical exercise.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In terms of societal perception, I would imagine that for the vast majority of chess players (90%) chess is more of a hobby than an actual sport.

For the other 10% which are essentially professionals, chess can be defined and perceived as a sport.

Though as someone else mentioned, the idea of a "sport" is ultimately subjective.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The answer is also totally dependent on your definition of a sport. My definition is: A competition between two or more opponents that requires physical, mental, and emotional strain on those participating.

Sports like Baseball requires a large amount of mental strategy and planning. For example; sacrifice bunts, intentional walks, stealing bases, and field positioning based on the batters batting record.

In Chess people dont think that sitting at a board takes a toll on as person, but try sitting there for hours on end and sometimes for multiple day in a row.

Rauan Sagit is right in saying that by standard definitions chess is not a sport because it is classified a a board game. I refer back to my original statement in saying that it all depends on your definition.

To give another prevalent world example: the world of eSports (i.e. Video games) can playing video games be a sport?

I hope this helps :D

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess is one of the few human endeavors that formally falls into all three categories of 'Art', 'Sport' and 'Science'. (I cannot actually think of another)

"Sport" from the French *desport* meaning "leisure", is generally understood to be defined as **a skillful competitive leisure activity whose rules and norms are either regulated/adjudicated by an objective governing body or understood by agreement or convention.**

**NOTE** The requirement for sport to display skill is frequently misunderstood to be restricted to displays of physical skills only. However this false definition of 'skill' ignores the great spectrum of human endeavor and focus's only one a single facet. Displays of mental skill or general skills such as horseback riding are included as human capabilities (or skill).

Consider motorsport:

1. Does motorsport exhibit competition?
2. Does motorsport require skill?
3. Is motorsport a leisure activity? (Is motorsport essential to human survival?)
4. Is motorsport regulated by an objective governing body?

If '**YES**" was answered to the above questions, motorsport is a sport. Now apply the same questions to chess:

1. Does chess exhibit competition?
2. Does chess require skill?
3. Is chess a leisure activity? (Is chess essential for human survival?)
4. Is chess regulated by an objective governing body?

If '**YES**" was answered to the above questions, chess is a entirely a sport. (Now ask why is Chess a science, or an art!)

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess is a Sport or not depends upon the Person's perspective . I second to all the above view points and agree to everyone . Truly it does not go by the blind definition of Sport as

" an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. "

Because Chess is mainly played inside a room which only needs your Eyes and Brain it cannot be coined as a Sport entirely . Some say that it is a gymnasium of the mind others may agree it is an Art .

Now my Perspective of Chess .

" Chess is exactly a Mathematical Exercise where we solve the Board one move after another . It is more of a kind of Study where we learn from Basic Principles to Advanced level . It reminds me of School Mathematics where we used to solve all problems after an adequate knowledge of the Lesson or after some experience,for an example any chapter of Integration or Permutation/Combination . When we encounter a lower rated opponent it is equivalent to the first problems of the Exercise which were easy to solve . The higher rated opponents were the toughest Questions or the Entrance Exams which after a lot of hard work , dedication and practice were the best accomplishments . "

I have derived the above from Bobby Fischer's Quote " Play the Board & not the Man " .

# Answer
> 1 votes
Nobody argues that the main sports organization is the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The IOC organizes the Olympiad every 4 years. The FIDE was recognized by the IOC in June 1999: https://olympics.com/ioc/recognised-international-federations/world-chess-federation In 2005 the FIDE became a full member of the Global Association of International Sports Federations (GAISF): https://gaisf.sport/members/international-chess-federation/

Moreover, the IOC organizes Olympic Continental Championships in every continent. Chess was part of the Asian Olympics Games in 2022: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022\_Asian\_Games Chess is also part of the African Olympics Games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African\_Games

In many countries of the world, chess is part and vote in the national olympic elections. However, it is not the case in the Anglosphere: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

If shooting is part of the Summer Olympic Games, chess could be part as well. In my perspective, the only reason that we do not see chess in the Olympiad is that in the time of The Cold War, the Soviet Union and the socialist countries had an incredible advantage in chess, and the West did not want to lose those medals in the Olympic Games because it was extremely competitive.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Chess has been variously described as a game, an art, a science and a sport. If you're playing for fun, it's a game. If the aesthetic considerations predominate, it could be considered art. But if winning is the primarily objective, for example in a match or tournament, you could consider it a sport in spite of the fact that little physical exertion is involved such as would be found in an athletic contest. But this latter interpretation is not universally accepted, and purists tend to denigrate it. Chess is not in the Olympics for that reason but instead has its own Olympiad.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I agree, many people will not regard it as a sport, but the exertion of the mind can in fact, under several definitions of sport, count. Ultimately, however, the meaning of sport is really subjective.

# Answer
> 0 votes
This question reminds me of the age old questions *"is this art"* and *"is this literature"*?

The answer is that it really doesn't matter. Words are just words, and their exact meanings depend on context (how, when, and where) and opinion.

Many people seem to love to argue about these things, but I say enjoy yourself. Enjoy chess. Enjoy running. Enjoy painting. Enjoy pictures. Enjoy writing. Enjoy reading. Call it all whatever you like.

---
Tags: history, terminology
---


# Question
Title: Position where neither player can force a win and neither player can force a draw
One sometimes sees the claim that in every chess position, either White has a forced win, or Black has a forced win, or both players can force a draw.

While this claim is "morally" correct, it is technically not quite correct. To be pedantically correct, in the third case, we should say that both players can force **at least** a draw. The point is that there can exist positions in which neither White nor Black can force a win, but White can force Black to win, and Black can force White to win. In such a scenario, neither player can "force a draw" in the sense of guaranteeing that the game will not terminate in a win for either player.

My question is, **has this observation been made before (most likely, by chess problem composers)?** I would be surprised if the observation is original, but I have not seen anyone state it explicitly before.

Below is a position (with White to move) that I came up with to illustrate the point. The position is theoretically drawn, and this can be seen without tablebases; the only defense to Black's threat of 1...d1Q+ is 1.f4, after which Black can avoid defeat only with 1...d1Q+ 2.Qxd1 Qxf4+ or 1...Qxf4+ 2.Qxf4 d1Q+ with a draw in either case. But White can force Black to win with 1.Qg2+ Qxg2#, and if White tries to "force a draw" with 1.f4 then Black can force White to win with 1...Qg2+ 2.Qxg2#.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/6Q1/5P2/3p3q/5K1k w - - 0 1"]

```

I contacted Noam Elkies and he said he had not seen this stipulation before, but he noted that the (known) five-man minimum for a selfmate (see below) also achieves "my" task. White can selfmate with 1.Qg7+ Qxg7#. Either of the alternatives 1.Kf6 or 1.Kh6 leads to a tablebase draw, but also allows Black to selfmate with 1...Qg7+.
```
[FEN "6qk/4Q3/6K1/8/6b1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
I have never heard your point before, and it might be original.

There is a famous theorem by Ernst Zermelo (more famous for his set theory work), see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%27s\_theorem\_(game\_theory) which when applied to chess means that either White can win, Black can win, or both players can force *at least* a draw. To regular chess players, and even apparently to Wikipedians, the words “at least” might not seem necessary but to problemists they are essential, as the questioner’s elegant counter-examples show.

If Black is forced to mate, then he/she has gained at least a draw, so Zermelo’s theorem is not violated.
> 1 votes

# Answer
If I understood correctly, the position that you are after is a **dead position** because White and Black can't force a checkmate (including self-inflicted) nor a stalemate. Thus, if no draw is agreed and FIDE rules (dead-position, three-fold and fifty-move) don't apply (edited thanks to comment below), both sides would keep playing for ever and without any possible outcome.

The position below is the minimal example of a dead position:

```
[fen "k7/8/8/p2p2p1/P2P2P1/8/8/K7 w - - 0 1"]

```

#### Example

White to play and force a dead position:

```
[fen "1k4n1/1p2p3/1P1pPp1p/pP1P1PpP/P5P1/8/2Q5/K6B w - - 0 1"]

```

Where the solution is 1. Qc8+

IMO, the example I show is overly easy and has no "wow" factor. So, I am curious to see a good composition that arises from your observation.
> -1 votes

# Answer
> One sometimes sees the claim that in every chess position, either White has a forced win, or Black has a forced win, or both players can force a draw.

One doesn't. The claim is patently nonsense. Here is a position, which I am sure we are all familiar with, which is neither a forced win nor a forced draw for anyone. All 3 results are possible and everything is to play for:

```
[fen ""]

```

> While this claim is "morally" correct

No, it's not. It's not correct in *any* sense.

> My question is, has this observation been made before (most likely, by chess problem composers)?

Only if they've had far too much to drink.

The argument starting "but if I had a 32-piece tablebase then ..." is also nonsense. Since there are more possible chess positions than there are atoms in the universe a 32-piece tablebase is a physical impossibility. If you could store one position per atom the whole universe would still be too small to hold your tablebase.
> -7 votes

---
Tags: problems, selfmate
---


# Question
Title: How much of a handicap is it to have more than one piece that can't be taken?
In the first Harry Potter movie, *Harry Potter And The Philosophers Stone*, towards the end, Harry, Ron and Hermione have to win a game of chess while they themselves have to act as pieces. Now, I'm no chess master, but I know that some strategies involve actively sacrificing important pieces on the board in order to secure an overall better board position, or even secure a mate.

In the movie game however, 3 of the pieces are living people, making effectively 4 pieces "of kingly importance" versus only 1 on the opposing team.

My question is, how much of a handicap would it be to have 2, 3 or 4 pieces that are "of kingly importance" while still retaining their original move pattern, and which positions should I put myself and my two friends in (excluding the king) to minimize the risk of harm, while still having a meaningful set of pieces I can either attack with or sacrifice?

# Answer
The side not having the 3 extra "king-like" pieces does definitely have a decisive advantage from the start. Pick queen and rooks as the additional pieces that you can't lose and there's pretty much no hope. Pick pawns and it'll be extremely easy for the opponent to sacrifice a queen for one of them. Best chance for the handicapped player would probably be picking the rooks and a knight and hope their opponent falls for something like Scholar's Mate

A perhaps fairer game would be one where the opponent doesn't know which pieces are "king-like."
> 5 votes

# Answer
Such pieces are known in the problem world as “royal”. The general condition of having multiple kings is known as “Rex multiplex”.

The first question is what constitutes mate in such a situation. There are really three main approaches I’ve encountered:

(1) All royal units must be simultaneously and individually mated. (2) All must be checked simultaneously, and as long as no move releases all checks, the position is mate. (3) “Dynasty” Such pieces behave as if they are not royal, until only one is left.

Only in (2) is it disadvantageous to have multiple royal units. So let’s assume we are playing with this rule. The general principle is to avoid exposing the king until the endgame, and the same principle would apply.

If one must attack with a royal piece, it should be the queen, as it will have the maximum chance for evasion. But an opposing non-royal queen is very powerful against it because there is no chance of exchange.

Maybe royals should be clumped together, since there is then only one area to defend, and the royal units can help protect each other.

Some problem conditions aren’t very interesting when applied to over the board play, but this one could be excellent
> 1 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Would a stalemate declared a win be theoretically equivalent to this larger board chess variant?
Most drawn endgames where one side is stronger than the other (e.g. has an extra pawn) are drawn because the weaker king can force being stalemated on the rim if the stronger side avoids a repetition. Let's assume we add an additional rank/file at each side of the board so that the board would have a size of 10x10. The chess game would be played on the inner 8x8 board just like regular chess. The only exception is, that

1. a king that is not in check can and must step on the outer area if and only if there are no other legal moves and
2. must move back into the regular board as soon as it becomes legal.

Would this in effect be equivalent to declaring a stalemate on the board edge a win for the stronger side with perfect play?

# Answer
> 6 votes
No. Think of a position like White king on f2 versus Black pawn on h2 and Black king on h1. Black is stalemated, but adding the extra outer squares would not turn this into a win for White, but rather into a draw by repetition (...Ki2 Kg3! and now Kh1 is the only legal move

---
Tags: chess-variants, stalemate
---


# Question
Title: Can a non-rated tournament having all categories play in a single group and then the ranking decided based on overall performance?
Let's say there are 4 categories playing Chess: **U11, U17, Ladies & Open**.
In India, I have witnessed 2 types of category based Swiss tournaments, which are non-rated.

1. U11 players play each other; Similarly U17, Ladies & Open play only each other. No intermixing. The ranking is decided later based on the top performances.
2. All categories are made to play each other under a single umbrella. After completion of all the rounds, in the final mixed rankings, the category-wise top scorers are sorted out for prizing & awards.

Have seen the 1st approach to be fair, but it's often an organizational nightmare for the tourney directors.

The 2nd approach is easy to implement and it gives chances to the lower categories to play the higher ones. But I am not sure if it's considered fair.

If someone wants to go for the 2nd approach, are there any general guidelines for such tournaments & its fairness in the result?

# Answer
> Can a non-rated tournament having all categories play in a single group and then the ranking decided based on overall performance?

Certainly and it is often the best option. Note that this is also often a perfectly good solution for rated tournaments.

The situation where it is the best option is where one or more of the categories has few players. Then including the small category in a much larger tournament allows the players in the small category to have more and better games.

I remember a European senior (both S50 and S65) team championships a few years ago where there was supposed to be a separate category for women in each of the two age groups. In the end there were fewer women's teams than rounds and the organisers made the quick decision to have one tournament for all S50 teams and one tournament for all S65 teams rather than 4 separate tournaments.

To give an example of a FIDE rated tournament with different category prizes here is the entry in the English Chess Federation calendar for our club's annual FIDE rated blitz:

> 9 round FIDE rated blitz, 5+2, prizes for first 3 players plus 2 grading prizes, junior and senior (S65), max one prize per person

The junior prize, if memory serves me, was for the best score by an U18 player. The ratings for the grading prizes are deliberately not mentioned because they are determined on the day according to entry. On the day there were 45 entries so the first grading prize was set between the ratings of the 15th and 16th players in the rating rank order of players and the second between 30th and 31st.

The way this works in practice is very simple. You run the tournament as normal and at the end give out the prizes according to who finishes in which position. If you are using Swiss Manager for the pairing then there are settings you can use which will identify the different category prizes very easily.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I have seen both approaches. They're both fair enough to use, although it might be slightly fairer to separate them. Ideally you want the last round to have the two strongest players in a category playing against each other, instead of playing other people from other categories who may have very different strengths. But fairness is not the only consideration.

If you have a 5 round tournament and 7 people per category, it makes more sense to mix them; otherwise if you're unlucky you might not even be able to do proper pairings in later rounds. If you have a 5 round tournament and 50 people per category, it makes more sense to keep them separate; otherwise you might end up with 6 people in a category with a perfect score.

You also need to take into consideration what your players want. Are the people in U11 willing to play adults? Are the adults willing to play them? Do the ladies prefer playing amongst themselves, or would they rather play others?
> 6 votes

# Answer
I've also played in tournaments with both formats you mentioned. Either can work well, though for the second option, keep in mind the ratio of number of players to number of rounds. It's preferable if this ratio isn't too high in swiss tournaments.

E.g., a few months ago I played in a swiss with over 100 people (one big section), but only 6 rounds. While this wasn't terrible, the problem was that many of the top players wouldn't play each other. I tied for first with another player on 5.5/6 points, but I never even played him in the tournament. On the last three rounds I had to face players who ended up finishing as top 3rd, 7th, and 6th.

Meanwhile, the person I tied with took a half point bye on the 4th round, and partly because of this the top 3 players he had to face were only the 7th, 12th, and 26th place finishers. Getting 5.5/6 in a tournament while having such pairings certainly seems a bit off.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: fide, tournament, swiss-pairing, tournament-directors
---


# Question
Title: Struggling to improve past beginner level
I am a beginner skill level chess player who has been playing primarily against computers.. well on my Samsung, and Google apps for about a year regularly, but have played now and again my whole life (47). I cannot seem to beat the computer programs unless I am on the lowest setting of skill level.

On these lower levels the computer makes ridiculous mistakes and is no real challenge. When I raise the bar, I am able to hold my own through opening moves and am so, so during mid-game, but always get crushed in the endgame. Before I enter chess matches with live people, I would like to be a little more prepared, although my mind tells me I would improve if I played against live people.

I've read several articles and played tactics improvement apps, endgame, studying chess masters on Youtube which I subscribe to MatoJelic etc.. but somehow have reached a plateau. This leads me to your forum. Maybe there is a highly regarded site, video or book that can save me some time in the learning process for improving my mechanics or maybe just re-wire my brain.

# Answer
## EDIT ( edited on January 8th, 2014 ):

---

Some of the other excellent answers pointed out a flaw in mine: I have failed to mention the importance of analyzing one's own games. This is corrected below, for the sake of completeness. I apologize to the OP and others who found my post useful.

---

First off, let me say Happy New Year and Marry Christmas to you!

Second, you will have to invest quite some work to be really good, but I believe **it is doable** based on the information about your current skill you have provided.

Based on the information you provided I think that you can help me with this and I hope that we can successfully solve your problem. In order to suggest you resources for your improvement I need to get to know you as a chess player. I need to know *what pace of play you like, what type of positions you prefer and so on*\*, but you did not provide me that information so I will cover both options.

So far I have concluded that you are experienced enough to learn successfully from books and tutorials so I will tend to recommend those resources to help you self improve.

## Rule #1 that drastically improves players strength:

**Know your openings!**

You really have to know your openings well, so you do not:

1. Fall for cheap traps
2. Get horrible position which you will hopelessly defend for 50 moves, only to resign later.

If you like fast-paced games with lots of sharp, tactical play, I could recommend the *Sicilian defense* against `1.e4`, and the *King's Indian defense* against everything else ( ***King's Indian defense* will reduce your time required to learn the openings, as it is very flexible** ).

If you are slow-paced, positionally oriented player I recommend the *French defense* and *Queen's gambit*.

Just search for the *Starting Out* series on *Amazon* and read those first.

## Rule #2 that drastically improves players strength:

**Know how to play the middle game that arises from your openings!**

To learn how to play the middle games from those openings **here is a masterpiece**:

*Andrew Soltis: Pawn Structure Chess (1995)*

**A must have - period!** This alone can improve your strength by 50%!

## Rule #3 that drastically improves players strength:

**You must know how to play endgames!**

You need to know basic principles, at least, or else you will squander all the advantage you have built in your middle game.

End games are tough to master, and you will need lots of books. I can not recommend one made for beginners at this moment.

You can try with *Mastering Endgame Strategy ( Johan Hellsten )*.

## Rule #4 that drastically improves players strength:

**You must be able to exploit tactics in the game!**

We have all "been there": You have a "won" game, yet you lose it because your opponent found a "lucky move". Or you just got destroyed by a sacrifice you didn't expect.

There are lots of books on this topic, and I will recommend *Starting Out: Chess Tactics and Checkmates*.

## Rule #5 that drastically improves players strength:

**You need to know the basics of the "positional play"!**

Sometimes you will play openings that require from you to "deaden" the position, or your opponent will do it, and without this knowledge you will end up in a "boring game", you will lose focus and your opponent will easily "pick you off". Also, the problem with these openings is that **raw calculation does NOT help you to find a plan**.

You can calculate until you die, but you will not find a plan; you will need the knowledge of the positional themes to get you by.

Try with *Mastering Chess Strategy ( Johan Hellsten ).*

## Rule #6 that drastically improves players strength:

**Analyze your own games!** I can not believe that I have forgotten about this one! This is the most important part.

This is the pattern that I use:

1. Write down the game you have played;
2. Compare the opening you played with the moves in the book about that opening ( here *Starting Out* series come in very handy );
3. Evaluate the soundness of your middle game plan by consulting the *Soltis'* book, discover all the tactics that were in the position ( the computer is great for that ) and consult computer/stronger player/books to see how you would correct **both** your mistakes and opponents, and most importantly **try to pinpoint the game deciding** moment in the game;
4. Evaluate the endgame that arose: is it won, drawn or lost?
5. Evaluate the time you spend **in correlation with the position's difficulty**: do you get overly excited when things get tough/you are winning so you waste too much thinking time? Or are you too impulsive so you make moves without thinking?

As others have pointed out, your main goal is to play and not to get too distracted with the books I have recommended. Those books are easy for reading, and will teach you the general ideas + give you **the least amount** of concrete variations so you can get by in your game. My apologies for omitting this advice, I have forgotten about it, but without it everything else is really useless.

## SUMMARY:

Find books from *Starting Out* series for openings you wish to play. Get the book on middle games that arise from those openings; the ones I have recommended is excellent. Learn chess basics: tactics, positional play, endgames. For that, I can recommend the book I have used, **but here is a problem**:

The book is not written on English and you will have to find the translated version.

The book was written by *Vladimir Vukovic*, and is called *Uvod u sah* or *Introduction to chess* when translated to English. If you get that **consider your problems regarding endgame, tactics and positional play solved.** If you fail to find this book, try with the books I have listed above ( I have edited my post to provide you a book for each of the rules stated above ). I haven't read them, but I have a good feeling they can help-based on the critics I have read on *Amazon*.

I would start with opening books and middle games ( the *Soltis*' book recommended above ), and then improve my tactics, then positional play and only then end games.

This will be a long journey for you, but definitely an enjoyable one.

If you ever need any help, leave a comment and I will respond as soon as possible.
> 25 votes

# Answer
The fact is, computers are so strong now very few can beat them except on the easiest settings. I stopped playing them long ago - tactically, they'll turn you into a pretzel. Are you aware that free chess software running on a common computer can play at GM strength?

Get thee to your local USCF chess club, join, and play people. You'll find friendly games, comradery, tournaments, and opponents of all skill levels. You'll get to see a lot of equipment so you can select a chess set, board, and clock that suites you. You'll earn a rating which tells you how you rank nationally. Finally, if you really want to improve, there will likely be a player there strong enough to give you lessons.

You'll learn to enjoy getting crushed by 11 year olds :-D
> 16 votes

# Answer
1) Please go ahead and play live people! They don't bite. If you keep waiting until you're "good enough" you will always be able to find a reason to keep putting it off.

2) The single best resource for beginning chess players is Dan Heisman's *Novice Nook* columns at chesscafe.com. The best of them have been compiled and reedited into the book *A Guide to Chess Improvement: The Best of Novice Nook*. I recommend it highly.

3) As far as studying goes, my personal advice is to avoid feeling overwhelmed by everything there is to learn about openings, strategic play, endgames, etc., and for now just concentrate on tactics. At your level studying tactics will be overwhelmingly more useful than any other aspect of chess. John Bain's *Chess Tactics for Students* is a good workbook, but my recommendation is to go to a free tactics site like chesstempo.com and start doing problems. The site will track your progress and feed you problems suited to your level of ability. This is the single most efficient way to improve at chess until you are a quite experienced player.
> 8 votes

# Answer
The biggest mistake you are making is playing against computers, This is simply not the way, playing against such boring, silicon machines will offer you no fruit for chess improvement, you MUST play against humans, this is because there is much more to learn from a humans play, there is a huge psychological aspect involved in chess, and by playing against the computer you will not improve period. There are many chess websites to pick and choose, there is **chess.com**, which is completely free and **chesscube.com**, which is also free. If you want some serious internet games, you can pay to play on **chessclub.com** Also known as the internet chess club and **playchess.com**, which is run by by the renown German chess company **Chessbase**.

That is the first stage in a beginners road to improvement, play against lots of humans! If you can find a partner to play with in real life than that's even better!

Do not bother with such things like openings, the general chess training consensus on studying the opening is that it is a big mistake, you should pick an opening of course, but don't play various different ones, just stick with one.

**Also some fantastic chess websites for improving your chess:**

**thechesswebsite.com** is absolutely fabulous with videos covering very aspect of chess

**chesstempo.com** is a must as it is a chess tactics website and will help you to hone your tactical abilities

**chessgames.com** is also great for viewing Grandmaster games and so forth

**chess.com** Already mentioned, is not only a great place to play chess but contains a plethora of chess knowledge, with thousands of articles written by strong players, hundreds of videos, a tactics trainer and a very strong chess forum which you should also be asking questions on!

Also, tactics! I cannot stress enough the importance of tactics, learn all the basic checkmate patterns and the tactical basics of chess! (The Skewer, Fork, Discovered Attack, Double Check and so forth)

I would also like to improve upon AlwaysLearningNewStuff's answer by recommending many other great chess prose.

Firstly, **Artur Yusupov's award winning chess course** is a must have, you should start with the first part (the Fundamentals) http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/docs/14/artur\_yusupovs\_awardwinning\_training\_course/

The everymanchess starting out series is also good, but do not buy them exclusively, they concentrate on openings which should not be your main concern at the level you are at (I have never read any of them and am 1883 FIDE Over-the-Board).

**Silman's Complete Endgame Course** should also be mandatory for every chess player!

If not mentioned already: **Learn Chess** by John Nunn should be compulsory for every adult trying to improve, the numerous five stars it has got on Amazon should be enough to convince you :), http://www.amazon.com/Learn-Chess-John-Nunn/dp/1901983307

**Chess for Dummies** Is also excellent

**The Amateur's Mind** by Jeremy Silman helped me to improve lots and made me shed my beginner skins :)

These books can wait for later ;)

**Understanding Chess Move by Move (John Nunn)**

**Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (Mark Dvoretsky)**

**How to Reassess your Chess (Jeremy Silman)**

**1000 Checkmate Combinations (Viktor Henkin)**

**Chess Strategy for Club Players (Herman Grooten)**

**Dvoretsky's Analytical Manual (Mark Dvoretsky)**

**Art of Attack in Chess (Vladimir Vukovic)**

**Pump Up Your Rating (Axel Smith)**

**Understanding Chess Middlegames (John Nunn)**

**Learn Chess Tactics (John Nunn)**

**My System (Aron Nimzowitsch)**

AlwaysLearningNewStuff has already mentioned Soltis's excellent books :)

There are many other excellent books which I could include here but it would be too long of a post, if you are interested just ask for more :)

Also, I should end this post with a quote from John Watson's excellent book, **Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy**, *"it may be said of any chess rule that the concrete experience of an individual player gives him a more accurate and subtle understanding of its application than any conceivable verbal statement could"* Basically, nothing beats playing an actual game.

PS: Make Sure its against a Human!

PSS: And against a stronger player!

PPS: Nothing beats playing in real life! Go to your local chess club maybe!
> 6 votes

# Answer
It's difficult to answer the question without knowing your strengths and weaknesses. Thus, my suggestion is: post your games somewhere\[1\] and let stronger players tell you where you go wrong. It is important to include your own thoughts and comments with the games you post to help others understand your choices better and encourage them to give more extensive and relevant comments. After you know your weaknesses, you know better what to study.

\[1\] e.g. Chess.com forums; I'm not sure if SE is a good place for game analysis
> 5 votes

# Answer
A slightly different approach to others answers..

Chess Master 8000 is a computer program you can get from eBay for 5 Euros. This comes with Avatars which have different strengths and different play styles. For example one player holds onto Queen at any cost and also tactically good in mid game but not so in end game while another is very good in end games and weak in openings and avoids risk taking.. The variations are so much (there are about 30 players across all skill levels).. the randomness of errors is not repeatable and the avatars are good to play if there is no human opponent.

I played against it for a couple of years after getting frustrated with normal chess software and enjoyed.. but lost interest as angry birds started to kill all my free time..(I know .. it's a pity).

My children also play against it while practicing in their school chess clubs.

I will wholeheartedly recommend that no affiliation and the company itself is gone bust I think. You will get only used copies in eBay!)
> 4 votes

# Answer
My advice to my students has always been to not spend very much time at all studying the opening, at least not until you get above average in playing strength (USCF rating somewhere in the 1800+). Pick a simple opening, and if you get caught in a trap, then spend the time to learn how to avoid it next time.

You lose far fewer games because of missteps in the opening than you might think. Nearly all the time you get behind coming out of the opening, your opponents will give you the chance to catch up by making serious mistakes themselves. If they don't make those kind of mistakes, the odds are you wouldn't have beaten them anyway.

My usual approach is to spend just enough time on studying known opening variations to "patch over" flaws their opponents have already shown them. The majority of the time I spend with my students is going over tactics -- what to look for, how to calculate, that sort of thing. One of my students challenged that approach once, so we sat down with all the rated tournament games I had played so far that year, and examined my wins. Of the 17 wins in that group of games, played against players of USCF 1400-2000 mainly, I was worse coming out of the opening in 14. But my opponent's mistakes and my own ability to spot and take advantage of those mistakes accounted for the win.

Generally speaking, a player around USCF 1500 will make mistakes amounting to the value of a knight every 30 moves or so; by the time they reach USCF1800 that drops down to a pawn or two. But they make mistakes. The only time you need to spend a serious amount of time in opening study is when you get to the point where your usual opponents don't make those kind of mistakes.

What good is it to play the first 10-15 moves of a game perfectly, if you start making mistakes then and end up losing the game to someone who knows how to spot them? Spend your time learning how to actually play chess, instead of how to recite moves in an opening, and you'll get farther. Leave the concentration on opening to the time when you're already making very few mistakes in the other phases of the game.

Mistakes made in the opening, unless they are suprememly catastrophic, can be fixed in the middle game as your opponent's mistakes allow you to, and mistakes from the opening or middle game can also be fixed in the endgame.

If your opponent doesn't make mistakes, he'd win anyway, so it's not something to worry about.

There's a good set of elementary books entitled the Manual Of Chess Combinations (vols 1-3) from Russia House. In Convekta's Peshka series of instruction software there are several good tactical trainers. The best of them is CT-Art, but that's above the ability of most beginning players. When you solve a tactical problem, look at it again and try to decide what the key idea is that makes it work, then watch for that idea on the board next time you play.
> 4 votes

# Answer
A year ago I started taking chess seriously, which for me meant studying books, doing tactics training, and playing regularly against real people. I knew some tactics and understood the basic positional ideas after completing Josh Waitzkin's "Chess Academy" in ChessMaster 11. In March 2013 I scored 3/7 in my first tournament and received a rating of 1100. I haven't played in another rated competition since but would guess, based on my results against engines & people, that I'm around 150-200 ELO stronger now than I was then.

The things that *I* feel have made the biggest difference to my play are:

1. Doing regular tactics training. I normally use iChess and IdeaTactics on my phone.
2. Keeping records of my games, analysing & annotating them with a chess engine, and studying the annotated games with a focus on *my* mistakes. I use the free Scid vs. PC with Stockfish.
3. Revisiting positions from my games with Chess Hero to see if I can do better the nth time around.
4. Learning the basics of *just one* opening for white, and one defence against `e4`, and another against `d4` for black - and playing them consistently. Personally, I play the London System with white, and the French Defence and Stonewall Dutch with black.

Something that I feel is still missing from my training is regular endgame study & practice.

So there it is. I'm still a weak player, but I definitely have seen real improvement by doing all of the above.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Aside from all the other excellent answers, I will note that I have learned a good deal from analyzing how and why the computer beat me.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Chess.com isn't bad, but all the live games require you play much quicker you might expect, even in a social game. So start with the correspondence games, so you have time to think! And check out the free learning materials & tactical problems, they are pretty good. After some time doing this you might want to venture into trying "half hour" or 15:10 in "live chess", the longest time controls for live games. Don't take them too seriously. If you find you lose on time after making "only" twenty moves you are actually playing at the pace Kasparov plays... real chess games take hours to play...
> 2 votes

# Answer
My comment is derived from the trial and error of teaching my kids how to play/improve at chess and then applying the same discipline to myself. I think the most important mechanism is to review actual games, particularly losses.

Try to find the 2-3 worst moves you make in each loss. This can be done with a friend or coach, by yourself, or with a computer. With a little introspection, I think at the beginner/intermediate level you can fairly quickly identify what types of errors are contributing most to losses.

For my youngest kid, the errors are simple dropped pieces (or missing an opponent's dropped pieces). Gently noting these errors, I think, will self-correct over time. I think the self-correction happens faster by noting them explicitly.

For myself, I noticed a series of games that I lost, when someone had a check/fork resulting in me losing the piece. So I try - not always successfully - on every move to look for all the checks my opponent can do on me. An interesting side effect, I am more interested in protecting my king, because it makes this calculation much easier. But simply reducing (I can't say eliminating) this error, has boosted my chess play. I mean every check/fork against me results in a loss, so if I trim out half of them, I'm winning a lot more games.

And for my older son, I've noticed that he's pretty good during the openings and end game, but during the mid-game, when things get complicated, his moves get sloppy. So here, I tell him, slow down your analysis, take your time, you can figure it out but it takes effort.

Anyway just some examples - I basically think analysis of your lost games will point to where you are having problems (openings, endgames, not looking at opponenents' moves) and you proceed from there.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I'd recommend you join FICS free Internet Chess Server) and play some internet games against people. After every game (wins and losses and draws) analyse the game. Do not play another game until you are confident you can improve on the last one! If you simply play game after game without analysing the games you will not learn fully and you will not progress quickly (and most likely will keep repeating the same mistakes that keep you at a low rating). If you want, try www.chessworld.net correspondence chess. With long time controls you have all the time you need to consider your moves. If you do though, again always analyse your games.

I dislike the advice not to study your opening thoroughly! It is so important to know your opening well as this dictates the type of the mid and end game you are hoping for! So you must think well of the opening but realise it is also a part of your whole game plan.

Of course tactics are important but it is vital you understand the type of tactics you will face in your games and this is shaped by your opening!

Lastly keep studying in books and on the internet to improve your chess knowledge.

Learn from your mistakes but do not keep repeating the same mistakes again and again (the definition of madness/insanity!). It can be tough to improve but if you are determined you will improve!

I hope this advice helps. Goodluck :-)
> 1 votes

# Answer
You have reached a certain level, and determined that you can hold your own against other players, computer and human, until you reach the endgame.

Then the endgame is the weakest part of the game, the one where you lose the most games. That's where you have the most room for improvement. Work on that until it reaches the level of the other parts of your game.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Speaking from experience, I improved a lot just from watching GingerGM's videos about the London System, Black (Philidor) Lion, and his Master Method Previews.

I have also improved greatly from analyzing games via lichess.org's studies, esp. the games that I lost, and/or won by a narrow margin.

I'm recommending Lichess because it is what allowed me to really improve my chess game from complete noob to amateur.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Don't listen to any of that, Bryan. If advice is a size of a manuscript, it's not practical. For example, studying openings will take forever, but in a real game all that knowledge will be useless with the first move that deviates from your preparation. Best thing for you to do is to take a lesson - a good coach will point out flaws in your game that you can immediately focus on. Another thing is study tactics, just do a few Puzzle Rushes on chess.com daily for a week and you'll find yourself playing with more confidence. Thirdly, don't delay getting into live tournaments. That, on its own, is an amazing training ground. Talk to people about games, analyze together, play blitz, ask questions - you will learn quickly.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: Is contempt factor used as a way to make engine games more interesting?
Chess is believed to be a theoretical draw. So top chess engines, which are not too far off from theoretical optimum, tend to reach drawn positions, which are not too exciting.

My understanding is that to combat this, engine tournaments like TCEC force an "interesting" opening on the engines.

What I don't understand is why this should be necessary, when there is a seemingly more natural way to reach the desired effect - which is to use a contempt factor, i.e. a lower score for draws, for both players.

With high enough contempt, both engines will strive for complex, tactical, interesting positions for which neither is sure who will win, but are unlikely to result in a draw.

With the advent of ML-based engines like Alpha Zero and LC Zero, this is even more natural - the contempt can be baked into the training, so the engine doesn't just avoid draws in-game, the learned network treats drawish positions as inferior.

But I've not seen references to contempt being used that way - rather it appears to be a tool to maximize the traditional scoring, when there is reason to believe a difference in level between the engine and its opponent. Its goal is not to make games more interesting for us human observers.

So - am I correct that contempt is not currently an accepted way to make engine games more interesting? And if so, why not?

# Answer
Engine competitions don't use contempt to make games more interesting because engines that have high contempt are weaker than ones with low contempt. Put Stockfish (with handcrafted eval) with c = 100 against Stockfish with c = 0, and the latter Stockfish is likely to win. Therefore, if you force all competitors to use high contempt, then you don't actually have the strongest engines playing, and you cannot call your competition the "Top" chess engine championship.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, draw
---


# Question
Title: Are knights more powerful in Duck Chess?
In the chess variant Duck Chess (full rules), each player moves the shared blocking "duck" piece to any free square on their turn, taking away one or more moves for the opponent.

One immediate consequence of this is the failure of "distant defence": If there are free squares between the defender and the defended, the connection can be efficiently severed by the duck.

**Example**: The white queen can safely capture the rook on d3, and black can not recapture if the duck is then placed on any square d4-d7

This is but one way that the duck nerfs *sliding* pieces. Additionally:

* Duck blocking is a common way to stop a threat. Knight attacks can not be blocked.
* The duck can at most take away one square from a knight. For a sliding piece it can be a whole ray. (Bishops more trappable?)

**Does this mean knights are relatively more valuable in duck chess than in standard chess?**

# Answer
> 3 votes
I have played a few duck chess games and from my personal experience, **knights are much better in duck chess** when compared to their strength in standard chess. **The piece values change**, precisely because of the reason you give in your question (i.e. the duck being able to **interfere** with the power of rooks and bishops).

That does not only regard interference tactics (i.e. making rooks, bishops, and queens bad defenders), but also the activity of these pieces, as their paths can be blocked.

The duck can completely block a rook on an open file, making it unable to move, thus rendering it very inactive. A rook that would dominate a position in standard chess may therefore be pretty weak in duck chess.

To cut off a rook or bishop, the duck just needs to be placed on any of the controlled squares. Contrary to that, the duck can only block **one** square of the knight and needs to be **exactly placed** on that square.

Furthermore, the duck cannot block a knight's control of a square, which makes the knight the best piece to defend other pieces, as well as a great attacker.

**Knights are much better** than bishops in duck chess and *may very well be even better than rooks*, but to get objectively reliable answers about the changed piece values, we'll likely have to wait until someone adapts the chess engines to play and evaluate duck chess.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Although I still need to look at many more to have a sufficient sample size, I analyzed the endgames from 200 games from top duck chess players on chess.com. I recorded the material imbalance and end result and used some statistics to find values of 1, 6.5, 3.5, 5.5, and 10 (in the order of P,N,B,R,Q). I would say these values are probably uncertain to around a point and a half or so but the trends I’m getting seem to say that the knight is more powerful than the rook.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Though knights are stronger in duck chess, they should not be overestimated. By attacking the knight with a pawn and blocking the square, the knight would usually move to, the knight can easily be caught in many situations.

---
Tags: tactics, chess-variants, evaluation, knights, point-value
---


# Question
Title: What makes an opening move the "mainline"?
After 1.e4 c6, 2. d4 d5, the move 3. Nc3 is called the "mainline". According to lichess's database, the move 3. e5 has been played more than 3. Nc3, both by masters and by non-masters. This makes me wonder why we don't call 3. e5 the "mainline".

In general, what makes an opening move the "mainline"? Is it not the most popular move?

# Answer
There's no universal definition of what constitutes a mainline move. It also changes through time, so in this case 3.Nc3 may have been the mainline before but not anymore.

Anyway I don't think I've heard "mainline Caro-Kann" to refer to 3.Nc3, but rather "Classical Caro-Kann".
> 5 votes

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