# Question
Title: Is the Queen plus pawn versus Queen endgame always a draw?
In a Queen + King versus Queen + King endgame (including zero or more pawns) these is a strong draw tendency due to the fact that a Queen can deliver multiple checks in a row to the opponents open King. My question concerns the Queen+pawn versus Queen endgame. Assuming that the pawn is on its initial square (second rank for white, seventh rank for black), are all these endgames objectively drawn? Second of all, what is the best strategy for the player with the material advantage to aim for a win?

# Answer
> My question concerns the Queen+pawn versus Queen endgame. Assuming that the pawn is on its initial square (second rank for white, seventh rank for black), **are** all these endgames objectively drawn? Second of all, **what is the best strategy for the player with the material advantage** to aim for a win?

Emphasis above are mine, and since you have 2 questions I shall answer both separately.

> are all these endgames objectively drawn?

No they are absolutely not!

> Second of all, what is the best strategy for the player with the material advantage to aim for a win?

Without seeing **the exact position** I can not answer that-your question is too broad-these endgames require thorough study as **everything counts** there ( the position of the kings, who moves first and so on ).

I can recommend you *Yuri Averbakh-Comprehensive Chess Endings ( Volume 3 )* to learn how to win `Q+P+K` vs `K+Q` endgames. There you have described patterns for winning with the bishop/knight/rook/central pawn, queen and king vs king and queen.

I have just suggested the above book because it is written for all levels of play-from novice **up to grandmaster**-so with that knowledge you can not squander your edge, but if you find something else even better for you!

The key is just to learn how to **recognize winning position and to learn how to win it.**

All you have to do now, is to use this `tablebase` to see **how can you reach the winning position.**

If you have trouble finding **exact** winning moves you can always go through `tablebase` moves-just click on the notation.

## SUMMARY:

Learn how to win `Q+P+K` vs `K+Q` endgames-\>input the position you are interested in into tablebase-\>if winnable, play through moves to see how to reach winning position.

I know that this might be too broad of an answer to you, but you ask for help **in Queen endgames** and these are the toughest to master. Just one **imprecise move** ( not to mention wrong one ) gives your opponent a draw and squanders your edge!

Hopefully this answer helped you a little.

If you have further question leave a comment and I will reply.

Best regards.
> 7 votes

# Answer
This ending is a draw unless the pawn is a bishop pawn or a central pawn and the pawn is in the seventh rank and is supported by its king. If the defending king can get in front of the pawn, the game is a draw; otherwise it is best for the defender to keep his king far away from the pawn. The defender should keep checking until he runs out of check, and then pin the pawn (a good strategy to draw). Based on computer analysis, there is a different thinking :normally the defending king needs to be in front of the pawn. A rook pawn or knight pawn is a theoretical draw if the defending king is in front or near the pawn or if the king is in the corner opposite the pawn's promotion square. A knight pawn has more practical winning chances than a rook pawn. A bishop pawn or central pawn is a win if the defending king is not in front of the pawn. A bishop pawn has better winning chances than a central pawn. The position of the defending king is especially important .

Edmar Mednis gave this breakdown when the defending king is not able to help:

1. A bishop pawn is the best pawn to have. It is relatively easy to advance and is a win once it reaches the seventh rank.
2. A central pawn wins if it reaches the seventh rank, but it is difficult to get it there.
3. if the pawn reaches the sixth rank, the position is usually a draw.
4. A knight pawn is relatively easy to get to the seventh rank, but the position may be a theoretical draw.
5. Positions with rook pawns are theoretical draws, but in practice it may be difficult to draw

**John Nunn gives this summary for the defense:**

with a central pawn, the defense has two possibilities: get the king in front of the pawn or get the king to corner nearest to the pawn's promotion square with a bishop pawn, the defender's only chance is to get the king in front of the pawn with a knight pawn, the defender must get the king in front of the pawn or in the corner furthest from the promotion square a rook pawn is generally a draw and the defensive guidelines are the same as for a knight pawn. Naturally, the less advanced the pawn is, the better the defensive chances
> 3 votes

# Answer
According to Wikipedia:

> According to Reuben Fine and Pal Benko, this **ending is a draw unless** the **pawn is a bishop pawn** or a **central pawn** (i.e. king pawn or queen pawn) and the pawn is **in the seventh rank** and is supported by **its king**. If the defending king can get in front of the pawn, the game is a draw; otherwise it is best for the defender to keep his king far away from the pawn.

If this endgame needs all those conditions to be winning, and you are saying that

> "pawn is on its initial square"

I would claim (based on the Reuben Fine and Pal Benko conditions) that this endgame is a draw unless you have a forced way to trade queens and to guarantee that your king gets to control the critical squares. For example:

From my example above you can see that these endgames are not always a draw, but apart from that type of situation, it will be a draw more often than not.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: endgame, draw, queens, queen-endgame
---


# Question
Title: What´s the result of this endgame? Black just played f3.
```
[FEN "8/1KP5/8/8/5p2/8/8/6k1 b - - 0 3"]

```

I recently come with this position on one of my games and I would like to know the result of this endgame...

# Answer
> 6 votes
```
[FEN "8/1KP5/8/8/5p2/8/8/6k1 b - - 0 3"]
[Plycount "19"]

3...f3 ( On a race to promotion ) 4.c8=Q { ...that white just won. Or did he?!? } 4...f2 5.Qg4+ Kh1 6.Qf3+ Kg1 7.Qg3+ Kh1 8.Qh3+ ( 8.Qxf2 { If white takes the pawn...Disaster strikes = STALEMATE !! } ) 8...Kg1 9.Qg4+ Kh1 10.Qf3+ Kg1 11.Qg3+ Kh1

```

\*If white takes the pawn...Disaster strikes = STALEMATE !!

If white allows black to promote the pawn, in order to avoid drawing by repetition, the resulting one is also a draw as no progress can be made by either side !

# Answer
> 2 votes
The general rule in K+P vs K+Q is that, if the pawn is at the 7th(2nd) row on the third file (`c` or `f` file), and the opponent's king is not near, the game is a Draw because of the stalemate positions.

---
Tags: endgame, pawns
---


# Question
Title: Old Indian defense variation: 1. d4 d6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 : how should White respond?
I had the following game which transposed to an Old Indian defense position:

`1. d4 d6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3`

But then Black did not follow with the main line: `3 ... e5` (see wikipedia article) but rather with: `3... Nc6`.

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 (3... e5)

```

I couldn't find this variation discussed anywhere which leads me to think it is likely an inferior line for Black. If so, how should White continue to gain advantage? `4. e4` perhaps ?

# Answer
> 3 votes
> Old Indian defense variation: 1. d4 d6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 : how should White respond?

White should continue to **fight for the center**, as always and Black should continue developing so he can pressure Whites pawn center **from afar.**

> I couldn't find this variation discussed anywhere which leads me to think it is likely an inferior line for Black.

I am not surprised-Black is tempting White to **overextend** by chasing the knight but this is not *Alekhine's defense* and I think White can get slight advantage from this position.

> If so, how should White continue to gain advantage? 4. e4 perhaps ?

No, not `e4`. White should use this moment to seize the initiative and **hinder Black's development.** You see, Black's only compensation for giving White the center power is his **superior development.** He will use it to pressure White's center or undermine it with flank attack. I suggest immediate `d5` as an answer. See the detailed variations below.

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 d6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6?! 4.d5! Nb8 ( 4...Nb4? 5.Qa4++- ) ( 4...Na5? 5.Qa4+! c6 6.b4! Nxc4 7.dxc6! b5 ( 7...bxc6? 8.Qxc6++- ) ( 7...Nb6 8.cxb7+!+- Nxa4 9.bxa8=Q Nxc3 10.Qc6+!+- ) 8.Qxb5!?+- ) ( 4...Ne5? 5.f4! Ned7 ( 5...Ng6? 6.e4 e5 7.f5! Ne7 8.Bg5!? ) 6.e4 ) 5.e4

```

and White is tempo up **in all the above variations** comparing to the usual *King's Indian defense* opening moves.

Since every tempo counts in the *King's Indian defense* this is a big plus-White will be **faster in reaching his typical queen side attack** while Black will be one tempo behind in generating King side attack. At the very least, this should force Black into long, **passive** defense since he will not be able to generate typical counter-play.

As for the moves with `!?` in the sidelines mentioned in the above diagram, you should consult the engine to find even stronger continuation-I just gave you my thought-it might not be the best move but I like the fact it maintains initiative/pressure.

Hopefully this answer helped you. If you have further questions leave a comment and I will reply.

Best regards.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The best reply for white and most usual in that position is Nf3, just finishing development and trying to castle kingside.

A normal continuation could be :

```
 [FEN ""]
  1. d4 d6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Nf3 e5 5. e3 Bg4 6. Be2 Be7 7. O-O O-O *

```

Black should play e5 sooner or later or he will not gain control of the center and space for his pieces

# Answer
> 0 votes
I think that the following options are available for white

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4.Bg5 e5 5.d5 Ne7 6.Bxf6 gxf6 7.e3 Bg7 8.Nge2 f5 9.Ng3 f4 10.Nh5 O-O 11.Nxg7 Kxg7 12.exf4 exf4 13.Qd4+ Kg8 14.O-O-O (4.Nf3 Bg4 5.d5 Ne5 6.Nxe5 dxe5 7.Qb3) (4.d5 Nb8 5.e4 Nbd7 6.Be3 g6 7.Be2 Bg7 8.Qd2)

```

The longest variation is just an example of how quickly white can create an attack. In general, the fact that the white pawn is still on e2 allows white to do e2-e3 and take control over the d4 square (which is impossible after e2-e4). The option 4.d5 is the most direct way to challenge 3...Nc6. The drawback is that you get less control over the d4 and e5-squares. I like the idea of 4.Bg5 because it threatens Bxf6 and ruins black's pawn structure on the kingside. It forces black to make a difficult decision without making a committing move (d4-d5, since pawns cannot move backwards). All being said, it is a question of taste, as long as white knows what sort of position one should aim for.

---
Tags: opening, old-indian
---


# Question
Title: French :: exchange variation - but not quite
I had the following in a game

```

  [FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 d5

```

expecting White to follow with Nc3 leading to the Two Knight's Variation of the French

Instead, the game continuing with:

```

  [FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.d4

```

transposing, I guess to some form of the exchange variation although the typical "exchange variation" happens in the French's main line: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5. Anyhow, is there a name for this opening and how should Black continue? (e.g. with 4....Bb4+ maybe?). Alternatively, might there be any merit in the adventurous 3...Qxd5 which loses a tempo for Black if followed by 4.Nc3?

# Answer
> 5 votes
The game has transposed to a standard exchange variation, a variation pretty well explained on Wikipedia. You could try a setup with `4... Bd6`, `5... Ne7`, with the idea that if white puts his best bishop on `Bd3`, you can play `Bf5` to change it off. Black is very comfortable.

The move `4... Bb4+` is not to be recommended, since it only helps white, giving them the free move `5.c3`.

`3...Qxd5` should be avoided since in the Scandinavian positions that arise, it is important to develop the `c8` bishop before playing `e6`.

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


# Question
Title: What are the main ideas and goals in the Queen's Indian Defense?
There's no real surprise when it comes to the strategy for the King's Indian Defence: storm white's king side, maybe sac a few things, and mate (ideally).

But what does a practitioner of the QID hope to achieve in terms of the opening and long term goals?

`1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 b6`

# Answer
> 13 votes
The key ideas for Black in the `Queen's Indian Defense` is to:

* Restrain White in the center
* Quick Development

The `Queen's Indian Defense` can be reached after the moves:

```
    [FEN ""]
    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6

```

In the `Queen's Indian Defense`, black is going aim his light-squared bishop and knight at `e4` in order to restrain the moves `e4` and to prevent `d4 to d5`.

White's most popular move is `4...g3` in which white aims to complete development on the king side and counter black on the long diagonal.

A key position is reached after the following:

```
    [FEN ""]
    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. Nc3

```

In the above position, `7...d5` might seem like a logical move, but it is against the spirit of the opening which say's that Black should be waiting for the most opportune moment to make moves like `7...d5` which occupy the center until the timing is just right. Also, after exchanging pawns on `d5`, black finds himself with 2 problems, the bishop on `b7` is blocked in and the `c pawn` is on an open file and becomes vulnerable to attack. For example, after white plays `Bf4` to eye the `c pawn`, Black would like to move his pawn to `c5`, but after the following:

```
    [FEN ""]
    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. Nc3 d5 8. cxd5 exd5
    9. Bf4 c5 10. dxc5 bxc5

```

The above leaves Black with a hanging pawn formation. The d and c pawns are extremely vulnerable and if white can quickly generate an attack such as `11. Ne5` generating a third attacker and pinning the pawn. Black may continue `11...Na6` and now white has `12. Nc4` taking advantage of the pin with the mindset of getting his knight to `e3`, so Black often plays `Qd7`, but White just plays `Na5`

Going back to positon after `7. Nc3`, we just illustrated that `7...d5` is not a logical move for black, so instead he plays `7...Ne4` directly occupying the `e4` square making it impossible for white to play `e4` and he wants to use his `f pawn` to strengthen his hold over the `e4` square and he won't block the diagonal of his bishop. After the following:

```
    [FEN ""]
    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. Nc3 Ne4
    8. Nxe4 Bxe4 9. Ne1 Bxg2 10. Nxg2 d5

```

Black is now willing to play `d5` because there is not bishop on `b7` anymore and he can now gain share of the center and the position is about equal, so after `7...Ne4`, white often plays `8. Qc2`, `8...f5` looks like a natural response, but white plays `9. Ne5` and would black would quickly find himself in trouble after:

```
    [FEN ""]
    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. Nc3 Ne4
    8. Qc2 f5 9. Ne5 d6 10. Nxe4 fxe4 11. Bxe4

```

In the above diagram, black does not have time to capture the `knight` because of the `bishop` and `queen` staring down the diagonal, so instead of `8...f5`, black should play `8...Nxc3 9. Qxc3 f5`. White still has in mind one other factor to gain an advantage. In addition to still play pawn to `e4`, he also counts on the fact that blacks `e6` pawn will become weak if black plays `d6` eventually, so for example:

```
    [FEN ""]
    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. Nc3 Ne4
    8. Qc2 Nxc3 9. Qxc3 f5 10. b3 Bf6 11. Bb2 d6 12. Rad1 Qe7 13. Ne1 Bxg2 14. Nxg2 Nd7
   15. Qc2.

```

White is looking for small small initiative based upon the weakness of the `e6` pawn, so in the end the fight for `e4` is the major theme that holds the entire `Queen's Indian` together.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The main advantage of the Queen's Indian defense is that it gives a good development to the light squared bishop, otherwise Black's problem piece, along the long diagonal.

Because it involves a "slow" development, it gives White a chance to overreach.

For the above reasons, it was a favorite opening of (then) World Champion, J.R. Capablanca (nearly a century ago).

---
Tags: opening, strategy, theory, 1.d4, queens-indian
---


title: FICS rating vs FIDE Elo

text:
# Question
Title: FICS rating vs FIDE Elo
I know that is hard to establish an exact equivalent, but I was wondering what is the factor P in this equation: `FICS_BLITZ_ELO * P = FIDE_ELO` following personal experience. I mean, if you use to play FICS blitz games and have FIDE ELO, what is your P? I suppose that with a full hand of replies we can get an idea of P value.

# Answer
The SurveyBot in FICS perform statistical analysis on the relation between users' FICS *Standard* ratings to their reported FIDE ratings. It gives the following:

> A list of the estimated FIDE ratings has been displayed above. The 234 submitted FIDE ratings fit the best exponential curve given by formula FIDE=a\*e^(b\*FICS), a\>0, where a=996.91895981, b=0.00035345 and coefficient of determination r^2=0.390.

However, no estimate of accuracy is given, and I'd say 234 users does not sound very much for it to be very reliable. And of course, this does not say much about the correlation between FICS Blitz ratings and FIDE standard ratings.
> 1 votes

# Answer
In this case, I will have to quote from the FICS FAQ (http://www.freechess.org/Help/HelpFiles/fics\_faq.html):

> 39.My rating is over/under inflated.
>
> Don't worry! Ratings are all relative anyway, not absolute. Compare your FICS rating only to other FICS players, not to ratings from other groups. Comparing your rating on FICS to a person's rating on another server or in a chess federation is not a valid comparison. FICS has a different rating system and a different player community than other organizations. Therefore your rating here is unlikely to match your rating somewhere else.
>
> 40.I have a rating on FICS. What would my rating from in-person tournaments be?
>
> Ratings on FICS are not comparable to those gained from real life tournaments because they measure play against a different group of people under different playing conditions. Some users have higher ratings in real life, some have lower ratings.

In your question, you say FICS Elo rating, but the Elo rating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo\_rating\_system) is a system of its own and FICS might not even be using it for its ratings. FIDE does, for sure! Also, comparing two rating systems is dubious since the opponents you meet, the time controls you use and the initial rating you get and the rating system you use will differ! But comparing the FIDE blitz rating with the FICS rating might be more valid. In this case, my guess would be that the FICS rating will be higher than the FIDE blitz rating. And I base this on absolutely nothing!
> 3 votes

# Answer
Ratings from different pools of players and with different rating methods cannot be compared with any reasonable accuracy.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rating, elo, blitz, online, online-blitz
---


# Question
Title: How do you browse games in a PGN file on Linux?
I've downloaded the database from ICOfY in PGN format. Are there any free Linux-based programs that would allow one to browse through it? I mean exploring the game moves tree while displaying position on the board and links to next move alongside statistics?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Scid vs. PC can do all of the above. It will take a while to load since ICOfY Base is rather large (upward of 4 mil games, I believe). Your best bet is probably to convert the PGN file to Scid format using the `pgnscid` command-line utility included with Scid vs. PC. That's what I've done in the past, but if I'm not mistaken, ICOfY Base is now available for download in Scid format.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There are a lot of free pgn vieweres but the best one is using chessbase

---
Tags: pgn, database, linux
---


# Question
Title: Queen's Gambit Accepted with black trying to defend the c file pawn with 4. ... Bd7
In the following opening:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 b5 4. a4

```

There is a well-known trap if Black tries to defend the c file pawn with:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 b5 4. a4 c6

```

However I got the following played against me:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 b5 4. a4 Bd7

```

How should White respond?

# Answer
After giving the issue some thought I think White has better prospects with:

```
[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 b5 4. a4 Bd7 5. axb5 Bxb5 6. Nc3 *

```

At the very least a tempo is won. If Black is not very careful as to where he retreats his Bishop he may very well lose material in addition to the c4 pawn which is doomed by all accounts.
> 3 votes

# Answer
```
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 b5? 4. a4! Bd7? 5.axb5! Bxb5 6.Bxc4! Bxc4 7.Qxa4+

```

and White gets back the bishop with the advantage ( no matter what Black plays `Qxc4` is White's next move ).

Hopefully this answer helped.

Best regards.
> 4 votes

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


# Question
Title: Is this Rook versus Bishop endgame winning for white (white to move)?
```
[fen "8/8/5b2/5k2/8/3R4/4K3/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

In this endgame can white win ? If so what is the plan here for white or how sould black try to defend this position

# Answer
> 3 votes
This ending is drawn, and the main thing that Black needs to avoid, and which White should aim for, is having her king driven toward the a1 or h8 corner (the problem being that those squares are the color that the remaining bishop travels on). White cannot force Black into either of those corners from this position, and so it is drawn. To see that the others are "good" corners, note that in the following position Black need only keep shuffling the bishop along the b8-h2 diagonal, and White has no way to progress toward mate, as a rook check on the eighth rank can always be blocked safely (which isn't true in the "bad" corners).

```
[fen "k7/4R3/K7/8/5b2/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: endgame, bishops, rooks
---


# Question
Title: Do symmetric positions have a higher draw ratio?
From my experience in chess, I have observed that my draw ratio in symmetric positions (e.g. the Italian opening) is higher than in non-symmetric positions (e.g. the Spanish opening or different gambits). In general, do symmetric positions have a higher draw ratio?

# Answer
Very good question, +1 from me.

> Is it true that asymmetric leads to win or lose and symmetric leads to draw?

It is not true that symmetric positions lead to a draw, and asymmetric ones to winning.

## EXPLANATION:

Many people consider the *Exchange variation of the Slav defense* as drawn, but you will find that top grandmasters disagree.

In a symmetric position **White has a small initiative or pressure**, because he moves **first.**

The reason this gives drawn games is because even if White manages to make some advantage, it is usually small and it pins Black to defense "but that is all". **Without a second weakness** White can not win, and with proper defense **he usually can not create it**.

However, try to play symmetric position as Black against a stronger opponent and you will see just how hard it is to draw. The advantage of having **permanent** ( although small ) initiative or pressure counts a lot, and I am telling you this from my experience.

Although I do not play against humans that often, I regularly play against *Shredder* in my spare time.

I always set the difficulty to `hard` and I always get "ground down" in the *Exchanged Slav* or in other semi-symmetrical positions-like `1.e4 e5`.

I usually have an easier time drawing in asymmetrical positions, since the **imbalance of strengths/weaknesses gives strong counter-play for both sides.**

In the *Queen's Gambit Declined-Exchange variation* I usually draw way easier, although I do not know much of its theory.

The difference between symmetrical and asymmetrical positions is this:

In symmetric ones you have a **small** but **permanent** advantage as White. That means that you can win, draw or lose, while Black usually can only draw or lose. Here White needs to make an effort to **outplay his opponent** or else it will end as a draw. Hence in these positions a truly better player wins ( Black's position is harder to play, though).

In asymmetric positions **both** sides have **strong counter-play** so in these positions chances tend to be **more equal.** These positions are better for Black because **you will have counter-play from the start** while in the symmetric positions you will have to **work very hard just to generate it**-how many times did we all have "a won game" only to lose it because our opponent was "lucky to have that one saving tactical shot"?

Because asymmetric positions give **greater chances for both sides to win** you see them being more popular then symmetric ones. Also, they require **less** studying.

What I have noticed in the games of Karpov, Petrosian, Capablanca and many others is that they use simple positions that are **objectively equal** to outplay their opponents.

Symmetric positions can serve great for this-your opponent thinks that it is a draw, but believe me when I say this, that extra tempo in the hands of the stronger and **more creative** player does count and can solve the game! I use this method too, and this method was used on me, so I speak from my experience.

Other players like Alekhin, Kasparov, Tal and so on, did not care for giving their opponents strong counter-play because they relied on their **fantastic calculation strength.**

Objectively speaking, **if both play well**, the game must end in a draw. It is a matter of choice how someone will fight for the win.

I prefer symmetric positions as White, since I am good at endgame and positional play, so to have a small but lasting advantage is enough for me. I will use my creativity to complicate the game and generate winning chances. These positions require a lot of creative work and **high technique** for both sides to be able to play them well.

As Black, I **always** play asymmetric lines because of the reasons given above ( believe me, it is not so easy to draw against *Shredder* relying on "sheer" strength **even if the position is drawn!** ). These positions require a **strong calculating skill** from a player and crafty use of **tempo**.

Hopefully this answer sheds some light and gives you some insight about strength / weaknesses of both types of positions.

## EDIT IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT FROM MEMBER *SalvadorDali*:

> Also sentence like asymmetric positions require less time to study sounds really strange.

The beauty of the asymmetric position is the strength of the counter-play you get and how little energy and time it requires to find a plan.

Let us compare two similar openings from Black's point of view-QGD and Slav-but let us focus on Exchange variations.

```
[fen "r1bqrnk1/pp2bppp/2p2n2/3p2B1/3P4/2NBPN2/PPQ2PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]

```

In QGD it is easier to find a plan as Black-knight jump on `e4`, `a6` or `a5` pawn push vs minority attack or `c4` outpost, "Petrosian knight", king-side piece attack and so on-you can think of a plan "right off the bat". Same goes for White-`Nge2` plan, minority attack and so on. All this happens due to asymmetry. The counter-play is strong for both-if Black succeeds White loses, and same happens if White succeeds in carrying his plan out. Furthermore, you have **limited amount of ideas** to study.

```
[fen "2r3k1/1prbbppp/pqn1pn2/3p4/3P4/P1NBPN2/1PRBQPPP/2R3K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

Now think about the Exchange Slav from Black's and White's point of view-can you offer a plan the same way? No you can not. This means that White will have to invest **a lot of work** to think of a plan that will give him **more than a draw** and that is not so easy to do in a nearly equal position. All you have here is an advantage of the first move which is enough for a **small but lasting initiative** but not for a win. However, in equal positions it is the **strength and creativity** of the both players that counts the most. One of the tries for White is to double rooks on the c-file and then enter **voluntarily into IQP** position.

```
[fen "2r3k1/1prbbp1p/pqn1p1p1/8/3PQ3/P2B1N2/1PRB1PPP/2R3K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

This will make an endgame weakness but due to his slight initiative, and now space advantage, he will retain some chances to win. Again, he will need to be creative to be able to win so he nigh decide to "equalize the position" by opening the center thus transforming the position into open one, where he will have slight mobility advantage. Still, that is just an initiative-Black can still defend- so White will have to transpose into a better endgame but that requires a lot more knowledge-especially since the position is equal-so the art of properly exchanging pieces will be crucial here. Let us say that White somehow manages to enter knight vs white bishop endgame-since the center is open and pawns are not fixed it will be hard for him to win.

```
[fen "6k1/1p1b1p1p/p5p1/8/8/5N2/PP3PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

He will again have to invest so much work in order to create winning chances, and will have to show inhuman technique so he can convert that advantage.

As for Black, he must **adapt to White's action**, and if White is creative player, that means you need a lot of knowledge as well to parry his threats. And what about generating counter-play that gives you **equal winning chances** in the above diagram? Good luck with that! In symmetric positions it is **only White** who can win.

What if I am 2550 ELO player with Black who plays against 2300 ELO White? If White knows his stuff he can draw easily-that is why GMs play the `e6` move order instead of `c6`-QGD Exchange offers much easier play for a win. Think about the example for White I have described above, and tell me how would you generate **winning chances**? You will need an enormous amount of effort just to think of a plan, and high technique to carry it out. Not to mention the endgame technique required to outplay your opponent and convert the advantage. Same question for Black-how would you generate **winning chances**?

In symmetric positions-**not only openings but middle and early endgames**-you need a lot more work to generate tangible attack/counter-attack because everything is equal. You do not have a clear plan "right off the bat" and when you find one it is not as dangerous as it would be in the asymmetric position.

**That still does not mean that I should settle with a draw.** But to win in such positions you need to have **every aspect of your game** at a high level because you never know where will you get the chance to outplay the opponent-in the middle game or endgame or maybe opening-and even when you get that chance you still get an advantage you **must "grind down"** and that also requires high level of technique.

In asymmetric positions you have it so much easier-you do not need **every aspect of your game** to be at the high level ( **this is especially true for the endgame!** ) to be able to outplay your opponent. You only need high tactical skill and good knowledge of the typical plans ( minority attack, knight jump to `e4` and so on... ) and you are good to go.

This brings me to the second part of your comment:

> Can you please clarify your experience a little bit deeper, I can understand such phrase from a GM, but sorry for my skepticism - but playing against computer program does tell nothing about your knowledge.

Although not so clear, I assume you think of this sentence:

*Many people consider the Exchange variation of the Slav defense as drawn, but you will find that top grandmasters disagree.*

Again, look at the example diagram for Exchange Semi-Slav and you shall see that **only White can win**. White has advantage of first move here and that **really counts** as he can unbalance the position first. He can change the position into *Isolated Queen's Pawn* or he can completely open the center.

Black can **only sit and wait.** Although he is not weaker, he **is passive** and although computers have no problem drawing this position it is **extremely hard for a human** to just "soak up" punch after punch **just to draw**-come on Rocky Balboa at least won at the end! :)

That is why GMs tried to introduce an early `Qb6` with Black in order to unbalance the position **and get some counter-play** or at least to get **real winning chances** after their positional suffering ends-the idea is to snatch a pawn on `b2` and "suffer" until the endgame comes. Some abandoned the `c6` move order completely and enter Semi-Slav this way:

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6!? 3.Nc3 c6

```

The point of this move order is to enter the QGD exchange variation instead of Slav exchange if White exchanges on `d5`.

I do not recall exactly the line in the Slav-I belong to those who abandoned the `c6` move order and play `e6` but here is the idea with `Qb6`:

```
[fen "rnb1kb1r/pp3ppp/1q2pn2/3p4/3P1B2/2N1PN2/PP3PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

If you have additional questions leave a comment.

Best regards.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Symmetric positions tend to lead to more piece exchanges which in turn increases the chances of entering a completely equal endgame. I would guess that sharp positions have a lower draw ratio than calm positions. Of course, a calm position can turn into a sharp position and vice versa. I think that symmetrical positions have a smaller tendency to become sharp than asymmetrical positions. A good example is the Sicilian defense (1.e4 c5) where black breaks the symmetry from the very first move. In this case, white can try to steer the game to more symmetrical grounds with e.g. 2.c4. Incidentally, such a strategy does lead to more calm positions, especially if black continues with 2...e5.

What is characteristic for a sharp position? Open and semi-open files! Symmetry in the pawn structure contradicts semi-open files. Usually, it also leads to a single open file. A good example is the French exchange variation (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5) which is usually met with a yawn. The more open and semi-open files you can create, the sharper position you can achieve. For instance, the Sicilian defense quickly creates two semi-open files (c-file for black and d-file for white) after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4.

Do symmetric positions have a higher draw ratio? To put numbers on it, one could go to e.g. Chess 365 and look at the white win / draw / black win ratio for different opening systems. I would guess that such positions tend to be more calm and therefore have a wider draw path, so to speak. What I mean is that sharp positions will easier tilt in a white or black favor and have a narrow draw path. I would expect that the probability of a decisive result is proportional to the sharpness of the position.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, draw
---


# Question
Title: How can I automatically extract features from a position?
I am working on a project where I take a chess board position (FEN string converted to binary) & it's evaluation score and feed it to a neural network. My aim is to make the neural network differentiate between good and bad positions.

**How I encode the position :** There are 12 unique pieces in chess i.e pawn, rook, knight, bishop, queen and king for *white* as well as *black*. I encode each piece using 4 bits with 0000 denoting an empty square. So the 64 squares are encoded into 256 bits and I use 6 more bits to denote game state like whose turn it is to move, king-castle status, etc.

**Problem :** Since the input space for chess positions is neither smooth nor uni-modal (one small change in the board position can result in a huge change in the evaluation score), the neural network doesn't learn well. Now, the next logical thing to somehow extract useful features (like material difference, center control, etc) and feed it to the network.

I do not want to hand pick the features as I want the network to learn everything by itself. Therefore I am thinking of extracting features automatically using *autoencoders*. Is there any better way to accomplish this?

**Summary :** What is the best way to automatically extract features from a chess board position so that it can be fed into a neural network?

**UPDATE :** To generate training data, I have modified Stockfish to dump it's evaluation process into a log file. So every new move(position) it considers is written to a file as an FEN string along with it's eval score

# Answer
> 3 votes
To evaluate a chess position, you need to add code that understands different (e.g. dynamic and static) aspects of chess positions. Small changes (e.g. a blunder) will cause a big change in the Engine score and thus change the evaluation completely. I think that you need to make a survey about static and dynamic aspects of chess positions and write code that will extract this information from every FEN string.

Examples of what to extract:

1. Material balance
2. Number of open files
3. Number of semi-open files
4. Total number of heavy pieces
5. Total number of light pieces
6. Total number of pawns
7. Number of own pieces and pawns within three steps from the Kings
8. Number of enemy pieces and pawns within three steps from the Kings
9. Opening system that has been played in the game

# Answer
> 3 votes
> I do not want to hand pick the features as I want the network to learn everything by itself.

There is an AI-Koan concerning this situation:

> In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
>
> "What are you doing?", asked Minsky.
>
> "I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe" Sussman replied.
>
> "Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky.
>
> "I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play", Sussman said.
>
> Minsky then shut his eyes.
>
> "Why do you close your eyes?", Sussman asked his teacher.
>
> "So that the room will be empty."
>
> At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

Think about it.

---
Tags: engines, software, training
---


# Question
Title: Why and when should one make a zwischenzug (in-between move)?
I know enough German to know that the term "zwischenzug " means "in-between move." Another translation I've seen is an "interpolative" move. Why make such a move?

An example is when a rook wants to go to the seventh rank. First, it goes to the eighth rank, let's say with check, and when the opponent replies, the rook goes back to the seventh. What might be the advantage of using such a "roundabout" route to get to the seventh rank?

In GO (where I'm higher rated than in chess), it might be called a forcing move. You make a "throwaway" move that forces a particular response, and then you make your main move, and the two together are stronger than making the main move alone. How might this work in chess?

# Answer
> 7 votes
That's really an enormously broad question. The answer is "because it's a good move, sometimes." :-)

Let's say one player expects the game to go "I take here, then he takes there, I take there, he takes there, I take back the rook... and I end up a pawn up."

What happens is "I take here, he takes there, I take there, *he moves the rook with check*, I have to move my king, he takes there, I can't take back the rook... and I end up a rook down."

That's the sort of situation where a zwischenzug helps. When what at first looks like a forced sequence of moves can actually have an extra move added to the middle of it that makes the end result better for the side doing it.

Turning this into some actual position with a diagram and such is left as an exercise for the reader.

# Answer
> 3 votes
A zwischenzug is often like sand in the opponent's gear: You block a vital row or column, you start a discovered attack, you pin an important piece or you threat a mate. As this mostly happens when the opponent is in the middle of some tactics, it can bring her out of balance (e.g. giving a check which even loses that piece, but at the same time started a discovered attack on the queen).

# Answer
> 2 votes
***`What might be the advantage of using such a "roundabout" route to get to the seventh rank?`***

Using a "Zwischenzug" can be very beneficial. It is also easy to accidentally blunder. However, this is the primary method of introducing chaos into the game. Usually the option to change the course of exchange (or the offering of) is chosen when a player realizes that they can gain an advantage by making a move which was unusual. Perhaps by issuing a check through taking a pawn by sacrificing a knight, and then gaining a knight from some discovered attack. The net result is that you won a pawn. These happen very often, and are sometimes either overlooked, or accidentally made available.

You should always be on the lookout for a Zwischenzug. They can wreak havoc on either your opponent, or yourself, and should be monitored closely.

***`You make a "throwaway" move that forces a particular response.`***

This is quite a different question. Often these types of moves aren't made until the end game, when moving a pawn can dramatically weak a position - or when moving the king leaves a pawn unguarded. These moves can also be made as waiting moves, where a trap is set, and the player does not want to unravel it so they will play a waiting move, usually along the lines of pushing an outside pawn; perhaps something like `a4` or `a5`. Timing these moves can be very important, but they are more eloquent than the more combative style of Zwischenzug.

# Answer
> 2 votes
A zwischenzug occurs when a player, instead of playing the expected move, first plays another move, posing an immediate threat that the opponent must asnwer, and only then plays the expected move. Usually the expected move is an exchange or a piece retreat, but the in-between move allows doing the exchange or the retreat on more favourable terms.

So this is all about it: doing the expected move right then would put you in a bad situation, whereas the in-between move improves your position. This famous example contains an in-between move :

**1.Nxd5** White wants to capture this pawn with the Knight

**1... Qxd2** Black then captures the Queen on d2 with the following idea: "When White recaptures on d2, I take back on d5 and I am one piece up."

**2. Nxe7+** The black Knight was unprotected, thus White capture on e7 with check, forcing the black King to move.

**2... Kh8**

**3. Rxd2** And now this is White who is a piece up !

More about the zwischenzug in my latest blog post: http://chesstrainerapp.blogspot.fr/2014/02/zwischenzug-say-it-again.html

---
Tags: learning, tactics, zwischenzug
---


# Question
Title: How should black develop the dark squared bishop in the advance variation of the French Defense?
The following is the French defence, advance variation:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 *

```

My question is how Black should play his King's Bishop. Any time that Bishop moves the White Queen can go to g4 and force Black to disrupt his King-side castling pawns, e.g. as in the following typical continuation:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 Nc6 5. Qg4 g6 *

```

Should Black King's Bishop be fianchetoed instead? I think not cause targeting the spearhead of the White's pawn chain doesn't not look very promising, esp. from a fiancheto position where advancing a pawn to f6 lacks g-file pawn support. So, how should Black employ his King's Bishop?

# Answer
> 6 votes
The starting position is

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5

```

White has committed with e4-e5 since the e4-d5 tension is lost. In return, white controls the vital squares d6 and f6 for a future attack as well as stopping black from developing normally. The e5 pawn has its pawn base on d4. The critical line for black in this variation is to build up a pressure against the d4-square. The f7-f6 break will also come into consideration. The variation can go like this

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.a3 a5

```

Black decides to wait with the Bf8 and focus on building a pressure on d4. After a future f7-f6, the Bf8 can choose between Bf8-e7 and Bf8-d6. In general, the Bf8 already has an important role, because it controls the f8-a3 diagonal and is ready to recapture with Bf8xc5. So there is no need for it to move at all until the situation in the center is more clear.

# Answer
> 4 votes
First off, your second variation is bad-on `Bb4+` White responds with `c3` and gets a free tempo.

As for your question, bishop is always placed on `e7`. In some lines when Black plays `Nh6` and White captures `Bxh6` Black can put it on `g7`. Still, bishop always goes to `e7` in the Advance variation.

To help you properly play the advance I recommend you the book *Nikita Vitiugov-A Complete French ( 2010 )*. And here are the proper moves for the Advance variation from Black's point of view :

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Nf3 Nc6

```

and here White has many choices. Since I do not have enough space to cover all of them I suggest you the above book. It covers the Advance variation very well in my opinion.

Best regards.

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


title: Queen's Gambit Accepted with 3. Nf3

text:
# Question
Title: Queen's Gambit Accepted with 3. Nf3
According to wikipedia in the main line of the Queen's Gambit Accepted White's 3rd move is: 3.Nf3:

```

[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3

```

Doesn't that pretty much turn the opening into a real gambit? Black can now hold on to the c-file pawn since the usual trap (with Qf3) is no longer possible and b4 can be safely played by Black to prop up the c-file pawn.

# Answer
> 5 votes
> Doesn't that pretty much turn the opening into a real gambit?

No.

> Black can now hold on to the c-file pawn since the usual trap (with Qf3) is no longer possible and b4 can be safely played by Black to prop up the c-file pawn.

No he can not. White will regain the pawn and get huge advantage.

Here are the most relevant lines, **the rest can be easily found with an engine:**

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 b5? 4.a4 c6 5.axb5 cxb5 6.b3 cxb3 ( 6...Be6 7.bxc4 Bxc4 ( 7...bxc4 8.e4 Qc7 9.Qa4+ Qd7 10.Bxc4 ) 8.Na3 Qc7 9.Nxc4 bxc4 ( 9...Qxc4 10.e3 Qc6 11.Ne5! Qb6 12.Qb3+/- ) 10.Qa4+ Nd7 11.e3 c3 12.Bb5 e6 13.Ne5 Ngf6 14.Bc6 Rd8 15.Qxa7+/- ) 7.Qxb3 Qb6 8.e3 b4 ( 8...Bd7 9.Ne5 e6 10.Nxd7 Nxd7 11.Qxb5+/- ) 9.Qd5! Bb7 ( 9...Qb7? 10.Bb5+!+- ) ( 9...Nc6 10.Ne5+-) 10.Bb5+ Bc6 ( 10...Nc6? 11.Ne5+- ) 11.Ne5+-

```

Best regards.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Another reasonable continuation for white after 3. ... b5 is:

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 b5 4.a4 c6 5.e3

```

This transposes into a position more commonly reached via the Slav move order. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 dxc4 4.e3 b5 5.a4.

Here you can find a lot more example games to look through. But still Black does not hold onto the pawn and instead gives it back. The most standard continuation here is:

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 dxc4 4.e3 b5 5.a4 e6 6.axb5 cxb5 7.b3 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Bxd2 9.Nbxd2 a5 10.bxc4 b4

```

White has recovered the pawn. Stockfish rates this position as a clear advantage for white (+1.23), though Shredder's grandmaster database has it dead even with white only doing well after 11.Ne5 and with black doing better after Stockfish's suggested 11.Bd3. So it seems that white has the advantage here but that black has good practical chances.

---
Tags: opening, theory, queens-gambit-accepted
---


# Question
Title: Why does Black play 10...a6 in the A39 variation of the English opening?
I observed that after

```
[fen ""]

1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.g3 Bg7 7.Bg2 O-O 8.O-O Nxd4 9.Qxd4 d6 10.Qd3

```

In many games, Black played the strange move `10...a6!?` It has been played by top players like Kasparov, Anand and Carlsen.

What is the point of `10...a6?` Is it a waiting move for White to reveal his hand? It seems like a preparation for a future `b5`, but why at this particular moment when Black could simply develop the bishop on `f5 (10...Bf5)`? Also, in some variations, the pawn could be useful on `a5` so that Black's knight can rest comfortably on `c5`, so `10...a6` could be a waste of a move.

# Answer
This position is discussed in many books, the consensus being that `10... a6` is the best and most flexible move. As you say, black waits for white to reveal their hand, and `a6` is generally useful. Play could continue `10... a6 11. Be3 Bf5` or `10... a6 11. Bd2 Rb8`.

The move `10... Bf5` is a serious alternative since it provokes `11. e4`, blocking the diagonal for white's bishop. In this variation white would ideally like to hold back `e4` to keep the diagonal open. Still, white can keep an advantage in various ways. Marin in *Grandmaster Repertoire 5* says that white should try to emulate Smyslov-Timman, Moscow 1981.

White often chooses a set-up with `Bd2`, `b3` and `Rac1`, leaving black's `Bg7` bishop with nothing to attack. In such a position black needs the `b5` break to create active play. Therefore playing `a5` is usually not a good idea.
> 5 votes

# Answer
The starting position is the following (including the two options 10...a6 and 10...Bf5)

```
[FEN ""]
1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. g3 Bg7 7. Bg2 O-O 8. O-O Nxd4 9. Qxd4 d6 10. Qd3 a6 (10...Bf5).

```

Why did white choose Qd1-d3? First of all, this prepares to increase the control over the d-file with Rf1-d1 or Ra1-d1. Second of all, this protects the c4-pawn against Bc8-e6. Next, white is planning Rf1-d1 and c4-c5 to attack the d6-pawn. If black places the Queen on c7, then white has Bc1-g5xf6 followed by Nc3-d5xf6, ruining the enemy pawn structure.

Black's Bc8 has to guard the b7-pawn. Another piece has to take over this role, if the Bc8 wants to move to a better square. Black could try Qd8-b6 to protect the b7-pawn and put pressure on the enemy b2-pawn. Yet, 10...Qb6 is met by 11.Nb5 followed by 12.Be3. Black also has the thematic Nf6-d7-c5 or -e5. The problem is that white might have time with Nc3-d5 and Bc1-g5, which would cause trouble for the e7-d6 pawn chain. Black can also try Qd8-a5-h5, planning a kingside attack with Bc8-h3. Yet, 10...Qa5 is also met with 11.Nb5. Thus, 10...a6 prepares 11...Qa5 or 11...Qb6.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, english-opening
---


title: The Historical Comparison of Players

text:
# Question
Title: The Historical Comparison of Players
Arpad Elo described (chess life 1962) his ratings as

> "the measurement of the position of a cork bobbing up and down on the surface of agitated water with a yard stick tied to a rope and which is swaying in the wind".

Thus the Elo Ratings system is more a measure of Chess players' relative strength against contemporaries rather than one with a historical context.

Is there a way to adapt the Elo system to give it historical context or is there a superior way to compare the relative strengths of players throughout history?

# Answer
> 9 votes
There is Chessmetrics, and it attempts to assign inflation adjusted ratings, even create elo-type rating for players of earlier period.

I am personally not a big fan of trying to compare great players across time. But it could be useful if you want to see who the top 10 players were in 1910 to 1920 time period.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The biggest obstacle to a project like this is players in any given time period are rated relative to the other players of that time period. This leads to two distortions of the mathematics that are non-trivial to compensate for:

1) Outliers. Given a particular player who is very far above his contemporaries, it's difficult to assign an accurate rating. Paul Morphy was winning constantly, and so it's hard to know just how far above his contemporaries to position him, to name one example. If a player were to lose 2 games in thirty, for example, it's not possible to know with any degree of certainty that if the number were increased to 60 he would lose 4. We can guess, but that's all we can do.

2) Size of the player pool. If we assume player skill to follow a normal distribution, then the distance between extremes will be wider given a larger pool. This doesn't indicate that a player at the extreme of a smaller pool is any less skilled than a player at the extreme of a larger pool, though the number assigned will be higher for the larger pool.

I doubt the question will ever permit itself to be solved mathematically, leaving us all plenty of room to argue for decades to come.

# Answer
> 2 votes
This Wikipedia article gives good overview on this question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\_of\_top\_chess\_players\_throughout\_history

I personally like the method of comparing with engine play (One can lookup the work of Matej Guid and Ivan Bratko on this). This one also has flaws, however not the one currently described in Wikipedia - the authors have also measured and proved that it doesn't matter which engine is used or what is the evaluation depth, the relative comparisons holds cross different engine or evaluation depths. The drawbacks of this method would come from the style of play, as a more computer correct play would be favored versus more exploitive (from game theory point of view) play, which this method cannot determine.

Here is another page that gives a short summary of the method, as well as has an interesting calculation that was done, basically showing that the "strength" this method produces correlates with the ELO strength of the modern players:
http://chess-db.com/public/research/qualityofplay.html

---
Tags: history, rating
---


# Question
Title: What is the shortest known GM level OTB game to end with checkmate?
What is the shortest known on the board game played between GM rated players that ended with a checkmate? "Shortest" does not mean the game has to be very short.

Note: Edited this question twice clarifying some ambiguity.

# Answer
Keres-Arlamowski 1950, comes very close

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Szczawno Zdroj"]
[Date "1950"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Paul Keres"]
[Black "Edward Arlamowski"]

1. e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Qe2 Nbd7 6.Nd6# 1-0

```

I heard Mr Arlamovski was an IM at the time - but given Keres' level, and the fact that there were many fewer IM's back then - probably puts the game into the GM level category.
> 22 votes

# Answer
Reti-Tartakower, Vienna 1910, must be a good candidate, although Tartakower resigned one move before checkmate.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Vienna"]
[Date "1910"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Richard Reti"]
[Black "Savielly Tartakower"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Qd3 e5 6. dxe5 Qa5 7. Bd2 Qxe5 8. O-O-O Nxe4 9. Qd8+ Kxd8 10. Bg5++ (10. Bg5++ Ke8 (10... Kc7 11.Bd8#) 11.Rd8#) 1-0

```
> 5 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, grandmaster
---


# Question
Title: Where can I download (or buy) a database of Chess960 games?
Where can I download (or buy) a database of Chess960 games? Or at least find games from the major Chess960 tournaments?

edit: If some is interested here are games I managed to find in internet.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Interesting question, and the answer is little bit funny.

Guess where I found these games, would you?

On chessgames.com! But it's not called Chess960, nor Fischer's chess, nor random chess, it's called: Chess variants (000)

If you go to to ChessBase Database and you enter in the search form `chess960` you will find many games.

**EDIT**

I emailed 365Chess.com and Chesstempo.com and they said they don't have Chess960 games, I emailed Chessgames.com and they replied.

> There are a couple of them. There’s no easy way to pull them up, but here is a collection with 3.
>
> There might be one or two more.

I guess I did a better job than Chessgames team at finding chess960 games in their own database :)

I emailed Chess.com, they said

> Thanks for your email. Unfortunately we don't have a database of Chess960 games available for download. Premium members of Chess.com have access to all the Chess960 games played on Chess.com.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Go here:

AjedrezPeru

you can found a one million database with the most important games in PGN format, so you can import all of them in your software.

---
Tags: database, chess960
---


# Question
Title: What are the key ideas for white in the Keres Attack (Sicilian Scheveningen)?
The Keres Attack (Sicilian Scheveningen) has the following starting position

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Keres Attack"]
[Black "Sicilian Scheveningen"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. g4

```

What are the key ideas for white in this variation? Where should white place the light and heavy pieces? Should the King always castle queenside? What setup should white aim for?

# Answer
> 2 votes
OK, this one was tough to crack!

I almost gave up, but I believe I have found enough resources to help you grasp the concept of play.

> What are the key ideas for white in this variation?

I think that you will find the answer you seek in this article. The second part is found here and contains relevant moves only-no additional explanations are added.

Still, it tells you enough to grasp the basics.

> Should the King always castle queenside?

Yes, otherwise what is the point of `g4`-it will only weaken the king right ?

> Where should white place the light and heavy pieces?

According to the first part of the above article, bishop goes to `g5`, the other one's placement **depends from the concrete lines**, the way I see it. Rooks go to `d1` and `g1/h3`-the latter depending on the circumstances.

> What setup should white aim for?

The second part of the above article has a good theoretical coverage in my opinion, but ultimately the decision is yours since I am not an `1.e4` player and my theory knowledge is **too rusty.**

As member *Fischer* suggested, you can use this link to see some master games with commentary and try to learn something from them. Here is the link with some instructive games, **in my opinion**, that might help you-note the reference to this game in the comments.

NOTE: Not all the games are about *Keres attack* but please observe that this is a blog, not a theoretical book.

Another reason for including these links: **Being FIDE master yourself**, and **those guys being IMs**, you should have easier time understanding their moves and you should improve faster from those games.

This article mentions several **key games** for illustrating themes and ideas in *Keres attack*. To see them you need to register, but with some cleverness we can bypass this:

We know that the games mentioned were played in year 2007 or before, and know the names of the players and the *ECO code* of the opening. With these information it was not hard for me to find referenced games:

Sokolov-Nisipeanu ( notice that this blog mentions `e5` as serious novelty for Black as well-see the commentary **bellow** the diagram! )

Searching through the same database I found only one game between *Macieja* and *Kasimdzhanov* where they played *Keres attack* so here is the link.

And here is the last game.

These illustrate key ideas for black and ways the White copes with them-positioning of the rooks and minor pieces. For the original commentary of those you shall have to get by yourself.

A good thing would be to compare the moves with the current theory, and to use strong engine to analyze the **critical** middle-game positions in order to reveal the mistakes players made. **This should give you better insight about minor piece/rook positioning.**

## EDIT:

There are no "typical plans" or "typical piece setup" in the *Keres attack*-only raw calculation and **creativity.**

You must be able to **adapt to the every change in the position**-which is logical-since these are open/semi-open games and that is the quality they require from a player.

Only closed/semi-closed systems can give you "typical plans/piece setup" which is logical when you think about it, since the closed nature of the position allows you to maneuver.

In open games things change rapidly, so to ask "typical plans" is pointless, especially in such a dynamic and sharp line like this. I would focus my attention on tactical sharpness.

The way I see it, you can use `g4` to force Black into making a concession on the king side and to grab more space. Then you should use **your better piece coordination and space advantage** to increase your initiative. Playing through the games I see this idea for White over and over.

This is the way I would approach this problem.

## END OF EDIT

Unfortunately this is all I can offer at the moment, hopefully it will be enough.

Good luck and best regards!

# Answer
> 1 votes
I have not played this opening ever, and I am not qualified to answer it, I have not found many creditable sources for my answer, but I did manage to find a few.

I'm not a fan of copy pasting, so here's what I found

From Ez-net.com, I quote:

> The Scheveningen Variation is a classically motivated defense. Black creates a backward pawn center with his duo at d6 and e6, leaving no weakness on the important central squares d5 and e5. Black intends to simply develop his pieces and then proceed with queenside counterplay. The Scheveningen has been a favorite of Kasparov's, although he often arrives at the position through transposition, playing 5…a6 and 6…e6. Other top players use the defense frequently and it is well respected, but it doesn't have the devoted following of the Najdorf or Dragon Variations, perhaps because it is too straightforward and logical. White has several ways to combat the Scheveningen Variation, almost all of them leading to dynamic positions.
>
> The Scheveningen Variation, named for a town in Holland, combines …e6 with …d6, instead of the …Nc6…d6 combination of the Classical. The pawn at e6 can serve as a target for White’s tactical operations. Sacrifices of a knight or bishop on that square are almost routine. The most exciting lines start with 6.Bc4 and are known as the Sozin Variation. Opposite wing castling can lead to very double-edged games.
>
> The Scheveningen features the "small center" for Black, with the pawns at d6 and e6 keeping the enemy pieces at bay. For the most part, Black pawns will remain behind the front lines, mostly on the third rank. White will not have very many weaknesses to work against, and precision is required by both sides. For this reason the top player in the world are frequently seen on both sides of the opening.
>
> The much-feared Keres Attack is the greatest disincentive by white to Black's move order. The Keres Attack is the sharpest response to the Scheveningen, favored by attacking players. However it is by no means clear that White has a guaranteed advantage, but the results overwhelmingly favor White. So even Kasparov, who loved to defend the Scheveningen, often arrived via a Najdorf route to avoid the Keres Attack.
>
> **Scheveningen Variation, Keres Attack (with ...h7-h6)(Favors White)**
>
> **1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g4** White immediately starts his Kingside attack in motion. The threat to play g4-g5 and kick the f6-Knight into oblivion is one that theorists have long debated. Sould Black allow White to carry out his threat, or play ....h7-h6, creating a weakness? This queston produces two distinct variations. Keres Attack (without ....h7-h6) and Keres Attack (with ....h7-h6) the one we will now look at. Scheveningen players by and large prefer to slow down White's expansion by playing
>
> **6...h6 7.g5 hxg5 8.Bxg5** At this point is extreamely difficult to evaluate this position. Black's h8-Rook has been "developed" with having moved, a certain plus for Black. The trade of a Black h-pawn for a White g-pawn means that neither player is going to castle on the Kingside. Probably both Kings will move Queenside. White's menacing g5-Bishop must be carefully observed as the tactics of f2-f4 and e4-e5 will hang over Black's position. A usual continuation would be;
>
> **8...Nc6 9.f4 Be7 10.Qd2 a6 11.0-0-0 Qc7 12.h4 Bd7** This leads to another one of those bottomless Sicilian positions that defy conventional understanding. Theorists have a slight preference for White in this position.
>
> **Scheveningen Variation, Keres Attack (without ...h7-h6) (Favors White)**
>
> Black can allow White to carry out his threat, as follows
>
> **1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g4 Nc6 7.g5 Nd7 8.Be3 a6 9.h4 Qc7 10.f4 b5**
>
> White has extended his Kingside in order to launch an attack, while Black is busily preparing .**..Bc8-b7** and .**..Nd7-c5** with a counterattack against the **e4-pawn**. This position is uncommonly sharp. White has a slight advantage.
>
> **Scheveningen Variation, Fischer Attack (Equal Position)**
>
> The Fischer Attack is a straight-forward concept that begins
>
> 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Bc4 White tries to clamp down on the d5-square, with an eye toward attacking the e6-pawn with f2-f4-f5. Black has a variety of defenses based upon ...Nb8-c6=a5 or ...Nb8-s7-c5 in conjunction with ...a7-a6 and ...b7-b5-b4 going for the e4-pawn. A solid choice is:
>
> **6...Be7 7.Bb3 0-0 8.Be3** White prepares to castle Queenside.
>
> 8...Na6 Black decides to bring his Knight to the c5-square to eliminate the b3-Bishop. One of the tactics that Black has to be aware of is; \[8...Nbd7 9.Bxe6!? fxe6 10.Nxe6 Qa5 11.Nxf8 Bxf8 White sacrifices two pieces for a Rook.\]
>
> **9.Qe2 Nc5 10.f3**
>
> This is a common position from the Fischer Attack. White will aim for **g2-g4-g5** and a big Kingside pawn storm. Black will play ...a7-a6 and ...b7-b5 for an attack on the Queenside. This position is dynamically ballanced.
>
> **Scheveningen Variation, Maroczy Variation (Equal Position)**
>
> In the Maroczy Variation, White takes a more restrained approach to the center. He, she, it aims to complete his kingside development, delaying an attack for awhile.
>
> 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Be2 Be7 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Kh1 White tucks his King away to the h1-square. He is committed to playing f2-f4, and wants to avoid tactics based on the g1-a7 diagonal
>
> 8...0-0 9.f4 a6 Black guards the b5-square and prepares the c7-square for his Queen.
>
> 10.Be3 Qc7
>
> In their 1995 PCA Championship Match, Viswanathan Anand and Garry Kasparov played this position a number of times. The position is dynamically balanced.
>
> **Scheveningen Variation, Tal Variation (Equal Position)**
>
> 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6
>
> The Tal variation has a completely different plan by White. Mikhail Tal (1936-1992), World Champion, 1960 to 61, was a master of the attack, and introduced the scheme of a quick Queenside castling;
>
> 6.f4 White wants to create immediate central threats with e4-e5. Black has to keep a wary, cautious, careful, eye to guarding against this possibility of danger to this possibility.
>
> 6...Nc6 7.Be3 Be7 8.Qf3
>
> This position shows Tal's idea. What he wants to do is quickly castle Queenside and reintroduce the threat of e4-e5 after White's Rook is sitting on the d1-square. In many lines, when the players castle on opposite wing, Whit's Queen is ready to support the charge of the g-pawn. The position is dynamically balanced.
>
> There are other plans. White can continue with simple development or go for broke on the kingside with the dangerous Keres Attack, which begins 2…d6; 3d4 cxd4; 4.Nxd4 Nf6; 5.Nc3 g6; 6.g4. Often Black plays this Sicilian defensively, trying to create impregnable barriers. A Hedgehog Position is often the result.

---
Tags: opening, theory, sicilian-defense, scheveningen
---


# Question
Title: Willingly giving up castling rights in the opening?
```
[fen ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 e5

```

I've seen the Ukrainian/Old Indian Defence played in several GM games before 1970, and was wondering what black gained from willingly giving up castling rights in the opening. According to this source, black actually scores better in the variations where white deprives black of castling rights by trading queens, such as by `4. dxe5 dxe5 5. Qxd8+ Kxd8`. So where exactly is black's compensation for the loss of castling rights? I've heard that one can get away without castling if queens are off the board; but this is still the opening and the position looks fairly open (even centre control of both sides is more or less the same), so it seems to me that white can purposefully develop its pieces towards the now exposed black king, while black might have to spend several moves to get its king to safety.

# Answer
Weaknesses like doubled/tripled pawn structure, color complex holes, and right to castle only matter in chess to the extent to which the opponent can exploit them. In the Old Indian variation you gave above, yes, Black lost the right to castle, but is White in any real position to exploit it? The answer is no. In fact, Black's king is very safe after he plays c6 because he can then tuck his king into c7 and there isn't any real way for White to even check him. The pawn and c6 prevents Nd5 and Nb5 checks, and Bf4 check isn't gonna work because Black will probably post his bishop to d6 and/or play e5, so his king is clearly not "weak" despite the loss of castling rights.

There is another position in the Sicilian Four knights that goes something like:

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 e6
6. Nxc6 bxc6
7. e5 Nd5
8. Ne4 Qc7
9. f4 Qb6
10. c4 Bb4+
11. Ke2

```

While Ke2 aesthetically looks ugly because it loses castling rights and also blocks the light-squared bishop from developing, the point is that after Ke2 - f3, the king is extremely safe. If you look at that position yourself, I challenge you to even come up with a plan for Black to check the white king. If you can't, that's okay, because White's king is quite safe on f3.

Here is a counter example. This is from a game I played recently actually where I'm black.

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. d3 Be7
5. Nc3 O-O
6. Be3 d6
7. h3 Na5
8. Bb3 Nxb3
9. axb3 d5
10. exd5 Nxd5
11. Nxe5 Nxe3
12. fxe3 Bh4+
13. Kf1

```

Here, Black has sacrificed a pawn to force White to lose castling rights with the annoying Bh4+. Notice though that there are a number of factors in this position that makes losing castling rights much more serious in this position than in the previous position. First, Black has the bishop pair which alone is good compensation for the pawn. Second, White has all these dark square weaknesses on g3, h2, and f2, and Black has the dark-squared bishop. White also lacks his own dark-square bishop to protect those squares, so it only heightens the problems of losing his dark-squared bishop. Third, White's king position here impedes the development of his h1 rook, so his pieces are more awkwardly placed.

You can argue Black has lost a pawn, but I would argue that the pawn sac has forced White to lose a rook, because it will be very difficult to get his h1 rook into action. All these factors make losing castling rights here really really bad for White because Black has these compensating factors that allow him to take advantage of White's compromised king position and loss of castling rights.

So the takeaway from this is that with any weakness—be it losing castling rights, or pawn structure weaknesses—a weakness is only a weakness if it can be exploited by the opponent. In all mainline openings where one side loses the right to castle, or takes on any other sort of weakness, it is because that side willingly loses the right to castle because his king position can't be exploited and because other aspects of the position trump king safety/castling rights.
> 14 votes

# Answer
After 4. dxe5 dxe5 5. Qxd8+ Kxd8, Black has several advantages he does not normally have:

> 1. He has an e pawn against a c pawn, meaning the better center pawn structure.
> 2. BOTH of his bishop's diagonals are free and clear.
> 3. He can "castle by hand" after c6 by Kc7 (and from there to b8 if desired). On the other hand, he has the option of leaving his king in the center if that is more advantageous (if one or two pairs of pieces are quickly exchanged).The fact that the queens are off the board means that *most* of the danger to the king is past.
> 4. White hasn't developed any king side pieces, so it will be a while before he can castle, at least on the king side.

Given all the above facts, Black is not at a disadvantage.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Giving up castling rights with **Queens still on the board** can be far more dangerous. Once the **Queens are exchanged** and the enemy does not have a considerable activity to **attack your King**, then the **pawn structure** will have a key role in whether your King will be safe.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, castling, old-indian, king-safety
---


# Question
Title: How many materially equal positions are there?
Reading about the Shannon number, I see that there are about 1043 positions in chess, but how many of them are even? That is, materially (as an approximation). A position with one king vs 8 pawns and a king is not really interesting.

# Answer
What follows is basically a partial answer that is heavy on explanation, plus a pointer for using it to obtain a fuller answer if so desired.

---

Suppose we start with a blank 64-square chessboard and ask how many different positions we can make by placing down just 2 white knights. A quick answer is that it is `64*63 = 4032` positions, because we can place the first knight on any of 64 squares, and for each of those choices there are 63 remaining choices for the other knight. *But this overcounts a bit.* Specifically, that number double-counts every possibility, the reason being that our white knights are indistinguishable in terms of a chess position. What I mean is this: the counting scheme above treats (A) placing Knight1 at a1 and then Knight2 at a2, and (B) placing Knight1 at a2 and then Knight2 at a1, as two different chess positions. But they aren't: each has a white knight at a1 and at a2; they are the same chess position, as white knights don't come with individual labels. So the real answer should be `(64*63)/2 = 2016` positions.

If we were instead placing 8 white pawns on an empty 64-square board, the number of possibilities is

```
(64*63*62*61*60*59*58*57) / 8! = 4,426,165,368

```

This is just like the previous example, where the numerator naively counts the ways to place the 8 pawns, and the `8!` of the denominator accounts for the fact that our white pawns are indistinguishable from one another in a position (and there are `8!` ways to order the 8 pawns). Note too that the numerator can be written more succinctly as `64! / 56!`, so a snappier way to give the number is as

```
64! / (56! * 8!)

```

OK, so what about Shannon's paper itself? The estimate of the number of chess positions given there is that it is "of the general order of"

```
64! / (32! * (8!)^2 * (2!)^6) = 4.63E+42

```

From the examples above, we know what this is counting. The `64! / 32!` naively counts the number of ways to drop 32 pieces onto the 64 squares of the chessboard. Then we divide by `8!` twice to ignore the order of the white pawns and the black pawns. Finally, we divide by `2! = 2` a total of 6 times, to account for the white/black knights, bishops and rooks. So this `4.63E+42` is a rough estimate of the number of *32-piece positions*, **all of which have even material** of course. (Note that we are totally ignoring legality, e.g. we can have pawns on the first rank, both kings in check, and so on; for an interesting thread on the proportion of positions that are actually legal, see this MathOverflow post. We are also ignoring promotions by saying that the original 32-piece set is all we get.)

A similar "Shannon estimate" for the number of 31-piece positions is given by

```
  1.40E+41 = 64! / (33! * (8!)^2 * (2^6))      remove white Q
  2.81E+41 = 64! / (33! * (8!)^2 * (2^5))      remove a white R
  2.81E+41 = 64! / (33! * (8!)^2 * (2^5))      remove a white B
  2.81E+41 = 64! / (33! * (8!)^2 * (2^5))      remove a white N
+ 1.12E+42 = 64! / (33! * 8! * 7! * (2^6))     remove a white P
----------
  2.11E+42
* 2           to count those positions removing a single black piece
----------
  4.21E+42

```

Note the huge drop in the number of positions: there are `4.21E+41` more 32-piece positions than there are 31-piece positions. The numbers will continue to drop dramatically, and in fact the proportion of 32-piece positions among all possible positions will be fairly sizable (hence so too will the number of even-material positions).

It wouldn't be too difficult for someone to write a program that produces these Shannon estimates for all numbers of pieces (one would just need to make sure to account for all combinations of a given number of pieces), and we could keep track of all those combinations that have equal material as we go. At the end we would have the Shannon estimate for all possible positions (though the 32-piece number already gives a rough sense of the total, as Shannon notes, because of the quick drop in positions as we drop pieces), as well as a count/proportion of how many of those (pseudo-legal) positions have equal material.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: theory, endgame, middlegame, material-balance, game-complexity
---


# Question
Title: Carlsen vs Gelfand World Championship Candidates (2013). Could Gelfand have held it with 44...Bxf1!
```
       [FEN "8/5p1k/1P4p1/2P4p/2b4P/5Q2/5PP1/4qBK1 b - - 0 44"]

```

This position occurred on move 44 in the Carlsen vs Gelfand game in the World Championship Candidates, 2013.

Here, Gelfand played the losing move 44...Qxf1+. However, I analyzed the position after 44...Bxf1! and I do not see a win for White. Black sets up a blockade to stop the queenside passed pawns from advancing.

```
       [FEN "8/1Q3p1k/1P4p1/2P4p/2b4P/8/5PP1/4qBK1 w - - 0 44"]

        1. Qf3 Bxf1
        2. Qxf7+ Kh8
        3. Qf6+ Kh7
        4. Kh2 Qe8
        5. Qf4 Qd7
        6. Qf3 Bb5
        7. b7 Qc7+
        8. g3 Kg7

```

And how does White win? Black blockades the passed pawns. If White tries to use his kingside pawn majority, his own king gets exposed and could lead to a perpetual check.

# Answer
One winning line involves an exchange of queens and bringing the king to e5.

```
      [FEN "8/5p1k/1P4p1/2P4p/7P/5Q2/5PP1/4qbK1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qxf7+ Kh8 2. Qf6+ Kh7 3. Qf4 Bb5+ (3... Bc4+ 4. Kh2 Bd5 5. c6 Bxc6 6. Qc7+
Kh6 7. Qxc6 Qxf2 8. Qc1+ Kh7 9. Qc7+ Kh6 10. Qd8 Qf4+ 11. Kg1 Qc1+ 12. Kf2 Qf4+
13. Ke2 Qe4+ 14. Kd1 Qb1+ 15. Kd2 Qb2+ 16. Kd3 Qb3+ 17. Ke4 Qc2+ 18. Ke5 Qc5+
19. Ke6 Qc6+ 20. Ke7 Qe4+ 21. Kd6 Qf4+ 22. Kd7 Qd4+ 23. Kc7 Qf4+ 24. Kc8 Qg4+
25. Kb8 Qf4+ 26. Qc7 Qf8+ 27. Kb7 Qf1 28. Ka7 Qa1+ 29. Kb8 Qh8+ 30. Kb7 Qf8 31.
Kc6 Qf6+ 32. Kd5 Qf5+ 33. Qe5 Qd7+ (33... Qd3+ 34. Kc5 Qa3+ 35. Kc6 Qa4+ 36.
Kb7 Qd7+ 37. Kb8 Qd8+ 38. Ka7 Qxh4 39. Qh8+ Kg5 40. Qd8+ Kg4 41. Qxh4+) 34. Kc5
Qc8+ 35. Kd4 Qa8 36. Ke3 Qa3+ 37. Kf2 Qa8 38. Qg5+ Kg7 39. Qe7+ Kh8 40. b7 Qb8
41. Kf3 Kg8 42. Qe6+ Kg7 43. Qc8) 4. Kh2 Qe7 5. Kg3 Kg7 (5... Bc6 6. Qc7 Qxc7+
7. bxc7 Bb7 8. Kf4 Kg7 9. Ke5 $1 $18) (5... Kg8 6. c6 Bxc6 7. Qc4+ Kg7 8. Qxc6
Qe5+ 9. Kh3 Qf5+ 10. Kh2 Qxf2 11. Qc3+ Kh7 12. Qb4 Qe3 13. b7 Qe5+ 14. Kg1 Qe3+
15. Kf1 Qd3+ 16. Kf2 Qc2+ 17. Kf3 Qc6+ 18. Kg3 Qc7+ 19. Kh3 Qd7+ 20. Kh2 Qc7+
21. g3 Qc2+ 22. Kg1 Qc1+ 23. Kf2 Qc2+ 24. Ke3 Qc1+ 25. Kd4 Qg1+ 26. Kd5 Qg2+
27. Kd6 Qxg3+ 28. Ke6 Qe3+ 29. Kf7 Qf3+ 30. Ke7 Qe2+ 31. Kd8 Qd3+ 32. Ke8 Qe3+
33. Qe7+ $18) 6. Qd4+ (6. Qc7 $2 Qxc7+ 7. bxc7 Ba6 8. Kf4 Kf6 $1 9. f3 Bc8 10.
g4 Bb7 $11) 6... Kh7 (6... Kf7 7. Qd5+ Kg7 8. c6 $18) 7. Qd6 Qg7 (7... Qb7 8.
Qc7+ Qxc7+ 9. bxc7 Ba6 10. Kf4 Kg7 11. Ke5 $1 $18) 8. Qc7 Qxc7+ 9. bxc7 Ba6 10.
Kf4 Kg7 11. Ke5 (11. Kg5 $2 Bc8 12. f3 Be6 13. g4 hxg4 14. fxg4 Bc8 15. h5 Bd7
$1 16. c6 (16. hxg6 Bc8 17. Kf4 Kxg6 18. g5 Kh5 19. Ke5 Kxg5 20. Kd6 Kf6 21.
Kc6 Ke5 22. Kb6 Kd5 23. Ka7 Kxc5 24. Kb8 Bf5 25. c8=Q+ Bxc8 26. Kxc8 $11) 16...
Bc8 $11) 11... Bc8 12. Kd6 Kf6 13. Kc6 Ke7 14. Kb6 Kd7 15. f3 Ke7 16. Ka7 Kd7
17. Kb8 Ba6 18. g3 Ke7 19. c8=Q Bxc8 20. Kxc8 1-0

```

Engine output after 3. Qf4!

`+- (3.61): 3...Bb5+ 4.Kh2 Qe7 5.Kg3 Bc6 6.Qc7 Qxc7+ 7.bxc7 Bb7 8.Kf4 Kg8 9.Ke5 Kf7 10.Kd6 Bc8 11.Kc6 Ke6 12.Kb6 Kd7 13.f3 Ke7 14.Ka7 Kd7 15.Kb8 Ba6 16.g3 Kc6 17.c8Q+ Bxc8 18.Kxc8 Kxc5 19.Kd8 Kd5 20.Ke8 Ke6 21.f4 Kf6 22.Kf8 Kf5 23.Kg7 Kg4 24.Kxg6 Kxg3 25.Kxh5 Kf3 26.Kg6 Kg3 27.h5` `Stockfish Depth 26.`
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, middlegame, carlsen, gelfand
---


# Question
Title: How can I identify Zugzwang opportunities?
How can I identify Zugzwang opportunities, not only for myself, but for my opponent. Often times, I run into Zugzwang, whether it is for my benefit or not, by accident. Is this just a matter of looking at all the possible moves my opponent and I can make or is there more to it?

# Answer
> 11 votes
Zugzwang positions happen naturally as you work to improve your own position by taking good moves away from your opponent. Eventually, when every move is bad (or useless), your opponent will be in Zugzwang. You'll probably find these positions more often in closed games. Tigran Petrosian was a master at balling his opponents up so they'd run out of moves.

Here's a recent thread where IMO Black is in zugzwang: Why did Black resign this game?

# Answer
> 9 votes
There is a lot more to it!

Zugzwang lies in the "artistic" side of chess, and as such it requires lots of concentration and study of the position which is time consuming and not always there for us during a regular game. It often demands abrupt and shocking sacrifices so that we then "force" our opponent to make a one and only legal move. This is certainly much more than just looking at all possible moves, it requires lots of creativity, deep tactical and positional analysis and a little bit of arrogance that comes from the thought *"How can I checkmate my opponent right now?"*

# Answer
> 3 votes
I would like to add that Zugzwang is critical in endgame theory, for instance here this is a very important case of Zugzwang:

Another example here:

I explain the basics of zugzwang in my blog post here: http://chesstrainerapp.blogspot.fr/2014/02/zugzwang.html

---
Tags: learning, zugzwang
---


# Question
Title: Conversion of Shredder elo rating to FIDE elo rating?
Can anyone provide a simple formula to convert the elo rating provided by the chess program Shredder to actual FIDE rating. I am only looking for an approximate formula, maybe something like: FIDE\_rating = a * shredder\_rating + b, where 'a' and 'b' are numbers. The purpose of this is to get a good estimate of your FIDE rating without actually participating in a FIDE rated tournament and to give people a feel for their chances of success before enrolling in a FIDE rated tournament.

# Answer
I don't think it is possible to convert the Shredder rating to a FIDE Elo rating.

In general, the rating system has the purpose to create a relative ranking of all players based on their results against one another. Your rating from playing games with classical time controls makes it possible to say something about your level of play. Already at this point it is difficult to compare ratings from different time controls (e.g. blitz versus classical).

My point is that you can use your online blitz rating to estimate what FIDE blitz rating you could get over the board (OTB). Yet, it is harder to use your online blitz rating to estimate your OTB rating with classical time controls.

One way to get an estimate of your OTB rating is

1. Register on a serious online blitz site
2. Play rated blitz games with the minimum time control of (5 min or 3 min + 2 sec per move)
3. Ask your opponents what their OTB rating is
4. Make notes on your results and the opponents' OTB ratings
5. Calculate your performance rating.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: rating, elo, software
---


# Question
Title: Can you estimate a player's Elo rating using tests?
So I wonder if there are specific positional/tactical tests for every rating range, so that in the end the general rating of a player can be decided prior to competition.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Obviously the *best* test is playing in an actual competition, and most trainers will advise their players to play in as many as possible.

Other than that, there are books that try to do this. I don't know how accurate they can be, but it's likely that they need to be taken with a grain of salt: there is probably too much variance in the concentration level and time taken to solve the problems between different readers that they can't all get good answers. Also, chess skill isn't only related to skill in solving chess positions: confidence, controlling nerves, concentrating deeply for hours, judging when to play for a win and when to be content with a draw, most of those are competition skills that will only be reliably judged by actually playing in a competition.

There are many many books of exercises, and some of those try to do Elo estimation based on how many of them you got correct.

Books that *I think* that do that (there must be more):

1. The classic "The Best Move", by Vlastimil Hort and Vlastimil Jansa was probably the first of this type.
2. Barden's "How Good is Your Chess"
3. Keene's "Discover Your Chess Strength"
4. Alburt's "Test & Improve Your Chess" (I think)
5. Bosch's "The Chess Combat Simulator"
6. King's "How Good Is Your Chess?" (yep, same title as Barden)
7. Evans' "How Good Is Your Chess?" (seriously, I'm finding these on Amazon and they have different covers)

There's also this site: The Automated Chess Rating Utility website

Sites like Chesstempo have only tactics puzzles, but they also ask users to enter their FIDE rating and use this to calculate a correlation between Chesstempo and FIDE ratings; inaccurate, but better than nothing.

But again: a rating is an estimate of how well you did in competitions. Estimating ratings some other way seems a bit besides the point -- why not just play in competitions?

---
Tags: rating, training, elo
---


# Question
Title: Is the following endgame position a draw or white has advantage?
Hello, this is my first question on this site. Is the above position a draw or an advantage for white? I checked a few engines at different depths, some say it is advantage for white , some say it is draw.

The general strategy I guess for white would be to play Kf4 and try to win the g pawn. Black's king is temporarily unable to come to the 7th rank due to the white pawn and bishop combine. But can white win the g-pawn without letting go of his own pawn ?

Thanks.

# Answer
This endgame is a clear draw.

Black simply has to maintain his king on f8 and keep the bishop alive and White cannot make progress.

The only way White can win this position is if he can either capture Black's bishop and promote the f-pawn or simply promote his f-pawn. Capturing the g-pawn is not enough to win. If Black plays correctly, the Black bishop will never be captured, and as long as he maintains the king on f8, there is no way for White to drive out the king from f8 (no way to give check) and promote the f-pawn. So it is a draw.

I have attached here below the result from the endgame tablebases which have already evaluated this position. As you can see, all moves from White lead to a draw at best play. You can yourself enter this position and play with the tablebase on this website.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: endgame, bishop-endgame
---


title: Elo points after game completion

text:
# Question
Title: Elo points after game completion
When playing an opponent and winning, are the points taken from the opponent's Elo at the beginning of the game or end of the game? For example, I may play someone who begins at 1900 and is at 1600 when the game ends as they have played other players at the same time.

# Answer
> 1 votes
My guess is that the ratings used for the calculation are the ratings you and your opponent had at the beginning of your game. The change of rating is applied on your ratings after your game is done. For example

> Scenario: when the game starts, your rating is 2000 and the opponent's is 1900. When the game finishes, your rating is 2150 (due to other finished games) while your opponent's is 2100. Then, under my assumption above, the following happens (if you won the game)
>
> Your New Rating = 2150 + 2000\_wins\_against\_1900
>
> Opponent New Rating = 2100 - 1900\_loses\_against\_2000

---
Tags: rating, elo
---


# Question
Title: Rauzer Attack, Sicilian defense - why not play 6...Nxd4?
I'm just learning how to play the Sicilian and none of the books I have at hand shows this move. So I'm considering that this move is a mistake and there is some strong counterplay on white's part, but I just can't find it. Could anyone please point it out to me or otherwise explain the implications of 6...Nd4?

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5 Nxd4

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
6...Nxd4 is not a good move because of the following reasons.

One of the reasons is tempo. As a general principle, in the openings, you do not want to make your opponent develop his pieces faster than you can. Here, Nxd4 merely speeds up White's development, since White doesn't have to "waste" a move developing his queen. His queen is already well placed on d4.

```
   [FEN "r1bqkb1r/pp2pppp/3p1n2/6B1/3QP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R3KB1R b KQkq - 0 7"]

```

Now consider the fact that Black plays 6...e6 instead of 6...Nxd4. Normally, in the Rauzer attack, White has to develop his queen on d2 to support the knight on d4 and castle queenside. Now, consider that after 7. Qd2, Black takes on d4. This position occurs -

```
 [FEN "r1bqkb1r/pp3ppp/3ppn2/6B1/3QP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R3KB1R b KQkq - 0 8"]

```

As you can see, by just waiting one extra move, Black reached the same position, but having made an extra useful move of his own - pawn to e6. So here, Black didn't loose a tempo as in the previous line.

However, despite not losing a tempo, even 7...Nxd4 might not be optimal. The reason is that the end result (of exchanging the knights) can be achieved under more favorable circumstances. This is often called "**maintaining the tension**" in chess. You want to maintain the tension (possibility of capturing the knight) as far as possible in order to release it at the right moment.

I will show you a popular line in which Black achieves the end result of exchanging the knights in more favorable circumstances than 7...Nxd4.

```
   [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

   1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6
   8. O-O-O Bd7 9. f4 b5 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. Kb1 Qb6 12. Nxc6 Bxc6 *

```

If you see the chess openings explorer statistics, in this position, White wins this position `36.8%` of the time, and Black wins `35.3%` as of date.

If you compare these results with the results after 7...Nxd4, the results are quite drastically different. White still wins `36.8%`, but Black barely wins `5.3%` of the time as of date (I have to admit not as many games have been played in this variation to get a reasonable statistic, but the fact that not many players have chosen this line as early as move 7 ought to give you a pause and make you think it's not an optimal move).

# Answer
> 5 votes
It doesn't lose by force or anything, but it brings you even further behind in development; right now White has three pieces developed to your two, and after 6...Nxd4 7.Qxd4 White has three pieces developed to your one. Also, giving up your knight on c6 weakens your control of e5, making it easier for White to push his pawn to e5 with an attack at some point. You're better off doing something constructive.

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


# Question
Title: Do any openings result in a lost game for black?
Based on this comment I'd like to know which openings, if any, are considered unplayable (i.e. lost) for black? My own understanding is that in some opening lines it's harder for black to equalise, but are there any that are completely lost, assuming that white plays perfectly?

# Answer
Your question is somewhat hard to answer, because it depends on what you consider "an opening" to be.

Obviously, there are openings where black loses -- consider the typical Scholar's Mate, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qh5 Nf6 4.Qxf7#.

But, you will probably think, nobody with any knowledge of the game will play like that! And that's reasonable. But it is an opening, isn't it?

And if you mean "are there any *commonly played, theoretical* openings where Black loses?" then there are very few indeed -- after all, why would black play such an opening? Once some line is refuted, almost everybody stops playing it.

Katerina said:

> Ultimately, a lot of openings in chess will result in black losing, if both players play perfectly. It might not be your fault, just that black starts off one tempo behind.

I don't agree with that at all. Chess is considered by most people to be a draw at best play, and commonly played openings aren't losing. They may be slightly worse, but that's not the same as losing, not even with perfect play -- it just means that black will have to defend most of the game without much chance of winning himself.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The fool's mate, if white recognizes it, will put black at a severe disadvantage, of the checkmate kind.

```
[White "Mater"]
[Black "Fool"]
[FEN "..."]

1. e4 f6 2. Nc3 g5 3. Qh5#

```

Any variation of this where the black King's diagonal is wide open will suffice. The same can also happen to white, but you asked about Openings for black, if you consider this an opening.
> 2 votes

# Answer
There are no common openings that are considered lost for Black with best play. Katerina's comment was an exaggeration (at least according to the opinions of modern chess players). The most common opening that I can think of that is considered basically losing is Damiano's Defense (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6), and pretty much no one plays that except as a joke.
> 1 votes

# Answer
One bad opening that usually causes Black to lose is 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6.

White can play 3. NxP!, and if Black captures the N, he succumbs to 4. Qh5 ch Pg6 5. Qxe5 ch forking king and rook.

More often, Black ends up losing his e pawn, and while he can get it back, his development will be crippled while he is doing so.
> 0 votes

# Answer
If you define an opening as "any moves that you can play during the first 10 moves" then there are plenty of openings where both white and black can get a lost position after 10 moves. Assuming that white plays perfectly, then black will be in trouble in many "openings".

Chess has been around for a while and the opening theory has taken big steps forward. Today, the openings are divided into systems and variations, some of them as deep as the first 20 moves. With white playing perfectly, black should play accurately or will otherwise fail to equalize. Yet, playing fairly accurately, I cannot think of many established opening variations that lead to objectively lost positions for black after e.g. 10 moves.

In a practical game between two human players, as long as there is room for play and counterplay, all three results are possible.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Looking at Fritz upon White's first move, the first move gives White a slight advantage...but not an advantage that leaves Black in a position where Black would lose unless White makes a mistake - if both play perfectly, it will be a draw. If an opening is so bad that it leaves Black at a loss unless White blunders, it wouldn't be an opening that anyone would play, especially these days with such fine tunes computerized analysis of opening and opening theory. I play: Alekhine against e4, Benko Gambit against d4, and as white...right now, Dunst or Larsen or Kings Indian Attack....don't know my lines for all the potential e4 possibilities yet.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory
---