# Question
Title: When you study chess what do you do to learn something new?
All my life i was never been able to progress past beginner level. When i read a book or study a game i can't long term memorize what i do or what i read. So in practice what do you do to progress ? Do you write notes to summarize your games or your readings ? Do you have a planning to refresh your learning ? For example How much time do you need to memorize a type of finale ?

# Answer
How do you learn anything?
If it is not new then why did not not learn it when you saw it before?

World Champ Lasker said he did not memorize anything he could deduce.

So to more directly answer the question: You start with the very basics like set up the board and how things move. Then you add on that with new ideas and concepts. Then keep repeating until you have hit your maximum ability.

The issue seems to be that you have a learning problem at least with the way you do it which seems to be trying to memorize everything. You need to understand not memorize.

At your level the best way to progress is to read anything you can and understand it but do not memorize it. But it should be just a little bit more advanced than you are. Trying to read something too far advanced and you won't get any value from it.

After that initial basic learning , you would progress a lot by playing over GM games from a tournament. That will give you a feeling for good moves (or at least better moves than you would try on the average) and by repetition of openings the GMs use you will start to see how those openings are played and the type of positions they lead to.

Finally actually playing serious chess in tournaments will force you to use what you learned. Experience with losing should help you remember not to do certain types of moves in similar positions.

In summary you do not memorize anything. You understand it then do the work to apply it when you need to use it again in a new but similar position.

I am not sure what you mean by a finale but if that means end game then you study books on endgames. Fines BCE was the classic. There are newer ones now. Just learning the ideas of how to play a few basic endgames would raise your rating a lot. Many players do not know how to play end games at all.

When you advance far enough then you get past just knowing tactical motifs so you will start to learn positional ideas too.

But to get that far you do need to study the tactical basics near the beginning of your learning journey, so you can recognize them at a glance in a similar position. Good example is smothered mate. Almost everybody even beginners have learned that one once it has happened to them.

Final note: Random positions for tactics will not teach much. You need to find collections of similar positions that you can learn from. Ideally there may also be graded sections that build on the core basic idea but wrap it in more complex positions. But doing many similar ones will reinforce your ability to recognize similar ones in your games will be much more effective than doing random puzzles/tests on some web site.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: learning, beginner, study
---


# Question
Title: Is an early "normalization" of the position in Chess960 a sign of good quality game?
First let us start with two definitions.

Definition #1: A position is said to be normal if there exists a sequence of legal moves from the classical starting position which lead to this position.

Definition #2: A (Chess960) game is said to normalize at move n if the position after move n-1 is not normal, but the position at move n is.

I have seen some games of Chess960 between grandmasters and it seems that whatever the starting position is, the game normalizes quite early.

I was wondering whether there is a correlation between a high level game and an early normalization. The comparison should be made on a fixed position (in position 518, there is no need to be a good player to normalize!), as in some positions like King in f1 between the Rooks in e1 and g1, we can have the feeling that it will take longer to normalize.

One could do the following procedure to answer the question.

1. Consider one of the starting positions of Chess960, except number 518.
2. For this position, look at each game played. For example, it could be on a fixed website with the same time control and determine at which move they normalize.
3. Then look at the correlation between say the average rating between the players and the normalization.

If this is not possible to apply, I would like to collect some factually based opinion about the question.

I think that strong players have a much better understanding of developing phase and can quite quickly reach a harmonious position, which should be normal. Moreover, "weak" players can have the tendency to keep in a nondeliberate way the position messy, hence the normalization process can be long.

What do you think? However, there could be cases where the bishops are at the corner and do not need to move for a while. In this case, the "normalization can be quite long.

# Answer
> 2 votes
> I have seen some games in chess 960 between Grand Masters and it seems that whatever the starting position is, the game normalizes quite early

Perhaps worth starting by examining what has to happen for a 960 game to reach what you call a "normalized" position.

1. For each bishop at least one pawn move which allows the bishop to move has to be made
2. For each rook enough pieces (bishops and queens) have to be able to move out of the way for the rook to reach its "proper" starting square.

Knights can jump so can always move out of the way.

What this translates to is "the position changes to become one which allows quick development".

So, is rapidly reaching a position which allows quick development a sign of a good quality game?

And the answer is obviously "Yes" regardless of whether it is 960 or not. As beginners we are taught that rapid development is an almost universal good. Probably the only things that are more important are not dropping pieces and not getting checkmated.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I think a sort of "normalization" would be an indicator of a well-played game. However I don't think your specific definition of the term is a particularly useful one. To start, some positions will be normalized quickly out of pure luck. Others will be normalized too but only considering absurd sequences, so it doesn't make relate at all to the quality of the game being played.

In short, there could be a correlation between skill and "normalization" (as in your definition), but it would be a weak one and there should be a better way to formalize the idea that "good 960 games become normal games".

---
Tags: chess-variants, chess960
---


title: Why is g3 a bad move here?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is g3 a bad move here?
Why is the last move by white, g3 on the board below, considered a bad move? It was in a game that I played recently and my idea was to protect the bishop in f4 and give the other bishop more space to move. But Fritz said that this was a strategically bad move.

# Answer
> 25 votes
## Pawn structure.

Allowing the exchange **...Nxf4 gxf4** simply weakens your structure considerably. The pawns on f2, f4 and h2 are disjointed and cannot protect each other anymore.

Black can immediately start attacking f4 with a following **...Bh6**, for example, and your only way to defend that pawn is by moving your queen into a pin. Due to the tactical danger involved, it may even possibly be better to just leave the pawn to its own at this point. In any case, Black will have an easy game attacking all your weak points.

Alternative moves:

* **Qd2**: Also protects the bishop, while also putting out the queen (to a square where it is protected by your knights, so after a looming exchange of central pawns, Black cannot rob your castling rights by Qxd1). Limits your other pieces' mobility a bit, though.
* **Bd2/e3:** At first glance, this loses a tempo. However, on the upside it avoids the exchange on f4 completely, which means that Black cannot get rid of his bad Nh5 (for your comparatively good bishop and thus, as Ian Bush mentions, the bishop pair). The knight is bad because has no squares to move to except g7 (where it would temporarily stand in the way and has to be moved again, losing back that tempo). **Be3** overprotects d4 and leaves d2 open for the knights, **Bd2** blocks the d-file against queen swaps and gives the bishop mobility on the queenside - both are decent moves.

# Answer
> 13 votes
Other answers have made many good points. But the main reason g3 is a bad move can be reduced to a very simple explanation: *The knight on h5 is a very bad piece*, it has almost no squares to go to and can easily be threatened to be trapped. The best move in the position is **1.Bd2**, this is because compared to other squares for the bishop to move to, it blocks the d-file, preventing a trade of queens after **1...dxe5 2.dxe5**.

Here is one sample variation to illustrate how poor the knight on h5 is: **1.Bd2 Bg7 2.Nc3 Nd7**. Black has developed logically while attacking the e5 pawn, but... **3.g4** traps the knight and White wins. This means that Black cannot play simple moves and will instead have to spend a few moves re-routing his knight with something like **1...dxe5 2.dxe5 Ng7**.

There is a common saying "One bad piece makes a bad position". While not always true, in this case it is.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, beginner, blunder
---


# Question
Title: Why is the King's Indian often used to play for a win against 1. d4 when it allows an early queen trade?
Lichess's opening explorer database shows a 49% win rate for White wins compared to Black's 41% in the King's Indian, Exchange Variation. Meanwhile, the Master's database shows a whopping 64% draw rate, and a roughly even split of an 18% White win rate to 19% for Black. So, in a must-win situation, wouldn't it be better for Black to keep the tension for a move longer with 6... Nbd7, which avoids a queen trade after 7... e5?

```
[FEN ""]

1. c4 g6 2. Nf3 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. d4 Nf6 5. e4 O-O 6. Be2 e5 (6... Nbd7) 7. dxe5 dxe5 8. Qxd8 Rxd8

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
The first section of this answer is more subjective but I hope still insightful.

The KID isn't necessarily the best choice for a *must-win* game but it is a good choice for a fighting game and for creating chances to win as black. This is because it often creates a game where White will need to make many difficult choices and there are chances for White to go wrong. It's advantage over other openings is that it is more strategically complex and has less chances for simplification than solid mainlines. Yet is still more sound than extremely dubious lines such as the Budapest or Albin.

Now for a more objective analysis of the position you provided:

It is true that White has traded queens, but he has also traded his strong d4 pawn for Blacks d6 pawn. In this position Black is actually **strategically better**, the **d4 square** is forever weak and White is potentially overextended on the queenside. While Black can easily cover the **d5 square** with **c7-c6**. However it isn't so simple because black is also behind a lot in development. So we can understand that the position has become a dynamic fight between Whites initiative and development vs Blacks strategic advantage and control of the dark squares.

So to conclude: Yes the statistical draw rate is high, but Black is still getting a fight and it isn't easy for White. In general playing for win with black against a strong opponent is the most difficult task in chess and there is no perfect solution.

Edit: I will also add that the exchange variation itself has it's own body of theory which White needs to know before playing it. Most players with white aren't looking to draw (not in a must-not-lose situation) and so don't play the exhange variation regularly. Whereas Black KID players will be already familair with the theory of the exhange variation as they encounter it more often.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, kings-indian
---


title: Kramnik vs Topalov 1996

text:
# Question
Title: Kramnik vs Topalov 1996
Kramnik vs Topalov 1996 King Indian Bayonet Attack. After a ferocious Attack Kramnik did gain a pawn indeed on move 29, but failed to increase his advantage further and only drew the game. According to Houdini 6.02 Kramnik could have gained a second pawn indeed, but is the following position (black to move) really winning?

```
[FEN "4b3/8/4k1p1/4B3/r4P2/8/6PP/4R1K1 b - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

```

# Answer
I will start by stating that all positions with the rooks traded and Black's pawn traded for *any* of Whites pawns is drawn. You can explore this for yourself in the 7-man tablebase.

We can use this information to understand that Blacks main defensive technique is to threaten the trade of rooks. This narrows the initial variation to **1...Bc6 2.Kf2** as only Kf2 properly deals with the threat of Ra2. Now after **2...Kf5** White again has an only move to avoid an obviously drawn situation: **3.Re2**.

After these more or less forced moves we reach the critical position.

```

    [FEN "8/8/2b3p1/4Bk2/r4P2/8/4RKPP/8 w - - 0 3"]

```

As for if this is a draw, Black already has the option to play **3...g5** forcing a trade of pawns. With all the pieces active and an opposite colour bishop dynamic I would put Black as a big favourite to draw. Stockfish 13 prefers to delay **g6-g5** for a few more moves, starting with **3...Bb5** and gives an evaluation of 0.94 at depth 45.

With either third move from Black the position should be a draw as White cannot make progress due to the constant harassment from the rook and bishop, combined with the Black king standing firmly in front of the pawns.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: endgame
---


# Question
Title: How does AlphaZero learn to evaluate a position it has never seen?
Following up from answers to:

Understanding AlphaZero

My question would be how the neural net "learns" what to do in a position it hasn't encountered. Saying the actual AZ executes an MCTS using the bias + weights from the trained neural net just pushes it back a step to how the neural net calculates these values. If it was through random self-play, with no human knowledge, then how does it decide how to weight a position it has never seen?

# Answer
> 8 votes
The evaluation function of a chess engine, whether instantiated as a neural net or explicit code, is always able to assign a value to any board position. If you give it a board position, even absurd ones that would never occur in a game, it will be able to spit out a number representing how favorable it is to one player or another. Since the number of board positions in chess is unmanageably gigantic, the training can only occur on an infinitesimal sample of the game tree. The engine is not simply recalling previously calculated values of board positions, but is performing calculations based on the arrangement of the pieces. For a non-neural-net example, part of a chess engine's evaluation might be to add up the value of each piece on its side and subtract the total value of the opponent's pieces. Then, one set of parameter that would be adjusted while training would be the value of each piece.

When the engine is untrained, the values assigned to a position might as well be random since the parameters of the evaluation function start out with (usually) random values. The goal of a training phase is to adjust the parameters of the engine so that it assigns high scores to board positions that are probable winning states for the player.

From the paper on AlphaZero (page 3):

> The parameters of the deep neural network in AlphaZero are trained by self-play reinforcement learning, starting from randomly initialised parameters. Games are played by selecting moves for both players by MCTS. At the end of the game, the terminal position is scored according to the rules of the game to compute the game outcome: −1 for a loss, 0 for a draw, and +1 for a win. The neural network parameters are updated so as to minimise the error between the predicted outcome and the game outcome, and to maximise the similarity of the policy vector to the search probabilities.

*\[math symbols removed from quote\]*

In summary, during training, AlphaZero played a game against itself. When the game is over, the result of the game and the accuracy of its predictions in how the game would proceed were used to adjust the neural net so that it would be more accurate during the next game. AlphaZero is not keeping a record of every position it has seen, but is adjusting itself so that it can more accurately evaluate any board it sees in the future.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Here, it is crucial that AlphaZero is based on a *Deep Neural Network (DNN)* which essentially means that the network consists of many layers of, mostly, different types (regarding how the information is collected and processed). This allows such networks to subdivide the evaluation problem to a large (and flexible) number of elements it can process separately and then combine the results to a final answer.

If the Network was too flat (standard NN with small number of layers) it would simply smoothly extrapolate the knowledge it has learned from the examples. While this works fine (for over 30 years alredy) in simple tasks like recognition of hand-written letters it fails in more subtle problems when many details must be put together in a complex way. Think of animal recognition. Sometimes you have a large cat positioned frontally but in bad light or shadow, sometimes a small cat rolling on its back, and so on. You must learn which elements are crucial for deciding that "it is a cat".

This requires the subdivision of the problem into many small pieces and subsequent gathering of the pieces of information to reach a conclusion. This process (division, gathering) can be repeated several times. In DNNs both these functions can be guaranteed both automatically by suitable learning algorithms and manually by choosing special types of layers and their connections by the designer. It is the power of DNNs that they can organize their information flow very flexibly -- as this is usually not possible to a priori define which subtasks should be performed.

AlphaZero does the same: it analyses not only the full position itself of which there are so many possibilities that it would never learn to reach proper conclusions by simply extrapolating its limited knowledge. It analyses also subgroups of pieces, local configurations and learns to understand features like e.g. pin, fork, etc. Then, it combines plenty of such pieces of information to obtain a global picture and find the total position estimate. The way AZ does it is pretty flexible and dynamical.

---
Tags: alphazero
---


# Question
Title: Why does White trade off into an endgame in the main line of the Hungarian Defense?
I'm having trouble understanding the point of White's play in this variation (specifically `5.dxe5`):

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Be7 4. d4 d6 5. dxe5!? dxe5 6. Qxd8+ Bxd8

```

Why does White want to trade queens early, instead of keeping the tension with a move like `5.h3`? Also, why does this position have a comparatively high winrate for White (48% / 43% / 9% wins / draws / losses) according to the Lichess Masters db?

# Answer
White has a development advantage with an extra piece in the field and therefore should be able to capture some type of initiative despite the symmetrical pawn structure.

I suggest playing through some top games in the line to see how things play out.
> 2 votes

# Answer
White's position looks pretty active. It's basically a zero-risk opening that offers many chances to play for a win. For example, White can continue with a quick Nc3 (speculating with Nd5 ideas that will give the d8 bishop a hard time to join the game again), Be3 and 0-0-0
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, italian-game, trading
---


title: How to attack in Scandinavian Defense

text:
# Question
Title: How to attack in Scandinavian Defense
After 10 moves as Black, I often end up in a position very close to this, where I still have left my options open about castling.

```
[FEN "r3k2r/ppqn1ppp/2pbpn2/5bB1/2B5/P1NP1N1P/1PP2PP1/R2Q1RK1 w kq - 3 11"]

```

Although I play this opening fairly often, I don't really have a clear idea how to attack. Sometimes, if White hasn't played h2-h3, I attack the pawn on h2 with my bishop and queen., But it doesn't really go anywhere. I find the two White knights block a lot of my attempts. So, in the end I tend to do more defending, waiting for White to overreach.

What are some more aggressive directions I can take from this position?

# Answer
To paraphrase Garry Kasparov "An attack truly begins when a pawn attacks a piece". It is often very difficult to conduct an attack with just the minor pieces (Knights & Bishops) and your queen. To really get an attack going you need to get your pawns and especially your rooks involved.

So in the position you provided, after starting with the logical move from white **1.Re1**. Black may play **1...0-0-0** getting their king to safety, now Black may start an attack! if black can push their g-pawn from g7-g4 it will attack both the f3-knight and the h3-pawn, which will force open the position around Whites king and allow the Black rooks to join into the attack.

I will continue with a sample line to show how this might go:

```

[White "Victim"]
[Black "Scandinavian Hero"]
[FEN "r3k2r/ppqn1ppp/2pbpn2/5bB1/2B5/P1NP1N1P/1PP2PP1/R2Q1RK1 w kq - 0 1"]

1. Re1 O-O-O 2. Qd2 h6 3. Be3 g5 4. b4 g4 5. hxg4 Bxg4 *

```

White has only made normal looking moves and yet Black already has an objectively winning attack. Black can follow up with **Rg8** and **Bxf3** or even **Bh3** depending on what White plays.
> 8 votes

# Answer
In a position such as this, where White's army is kind of sitting back and you haven't castled kingside, you might try a pawn storm.

For a first step you may play h6 or castle queenside, both of which are moves which are useful for a pawn storm that do not absolutely commit you to it, so you can back off if you don't like White's replies somehow.

Here's one game where I tried that general plan:

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "21"]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Bf5 6.d3 c6 7.O-O e6 8.Bd2 Qc7 9.Re1 Be7 10.Bg5 Nbd7 11.Qe2 h6 12.Bh4 O-O-O 13.h3 g5 14.Bg3 Bd6 15.Bxd6 Qxd6 16.Qe3 Nb6 17.Bb3 g4 18.hxg4 Nxg4 19.Ne4 Qc7 20.Qe2 h5 21.Ng3 Bg6 22.Ne5 Rdg8 23.Nxg4 hxg4 24.Qe5 Qe7 25.Nf5 Bxf5 26.Qxf5 Qh4 27.Bxe6+ fxe6 28.Qxe6+ Nd7 29.Kf1 Qh1+ 30.Ke2 Qxg2 31.Rg1 Qf3+ 32.Kd2 Qxf2+ 33.Qe2 Qf4+ 34.Kc3 Nb6 35.Rge1 Nd5+ 0-1

```
> 8 votes

---
Tags: strategy, middlegame, attack, scandinavian-defense
---


# Question
Title: When should I introduce chess clock to a child?
My five-year-old daughter has learnt the rules of chess and is able to play complete games by herself. I do not have a chess clock and she has never used one. I am wondering if I should let her start using a chess clock, or should I wait when she gets older. If I do use a chess clock, what time control is recommended for players at her age?

# Answer
> 16 votes
> I am wondering if I should let her start using a chess clock, or should I wait when she gets older.

At your daughter's age (5) the most important thing is having fun. If she is having fun now I would skip the clock until she reaches the level where she wants to enter competitions which have clocks.

There is certainly no harm in explaining to her what chess clocks are and why you can't just stop moving in a game you are losing but I wouldn't encourage playing with them if there is any chance it puts unwanted pressure on her.

As an arbiter / organizer I would use clocks in junior tournaments in two situations:

1. For all games all the time only when the players have reached a suitable standard. This basically means a level where the games are to be graded by the national federation or rated by FIDE
2. For parts of selected games when required to meet time deadlines. This would be for games in low level (ungraded) tournaments where the tournament schedule calls for x games in y time and a particular game looks as if it is going to overrun. In that case at the time when this becomes apparent (one or both players sitting on their hands instead of moving) a clock is introduced with 5 minutes per player with no increments.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I wouldn't overthink it since you can always go for a trial-and-error approach. You can try online if you don't have a chess clock and see how it goes. I wouldn't say there's a specific time control recommended for each age. I wouldn't say it's a priority either.

Anyway I wouldn't suggest Blitz as it will probably make her rush too much (thinking too little is a much common problem than thinking too much at early ages). Something like 10 or 15 minutes would be about "normal". How much time does it often take her to make moves?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I like to use the clock with little kids (and press-clock-with-correct-hand) simply because it stops the waiting player from grabbing pieces when it is not their turn... basic rule is "unless your time is ticking, don't touch anything". Otherwise a game can descend into chaos, especially between two players.

Especially between 2 young players, I would use 10+0 time just so the game doesn't go on forever and become boring for the opponent. However if it is a decent game, they are thinking, and time runs out, then I would reset the clock and encourage them to keep playing.

ie the clock is there mostly to help enforce polite turn-taking.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Ask her if she wants to play with the clock. If it's her decision and says yes, she will be more likely to enjoy playing with it. In addition, generally playing with a lower time limit, ie. \< 10 minutes, is not that good for a beginner, as it hinders progress by not letting you analyze the lines. It also forces you to rely on your gut feeling and make moves with intuition, which a beginner simply doesn't have, so maybe at this point it's best to leave it.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Buy the clock and put it on a table a few metres away, 5 minute time control. Then let them play a game of chess. After each move, they have to run over to that table and press the clock. It's a lot of fun for anyone.

---
Tags: chess-clocks, children
---


# Question
Title: Alternative to ChessBase Replay training feature
I've used the ChessBase Replay training feature on my friends PC and now I am missing it. ChessBase is too costly for me. I've tried lichess.org: Practice with computer but instead of playing the moves in the PGN it starts playing its best moves which is quite good but annoying too. I need this feature to remember my own openings and sidelines.

My question: is there any open source or free software with this feature that can repeat the PGNs move and alert me when I make a non listed move (maybe suggesting it as blunder or good move)?

P.S.: I am currently using chess pad 2.0 with Stockfish. Can we add this feature to Chess pad?

# Answer
> 2 votes
**Listudy.org**
Upload a PGN and then you play the computer interactively. You play moves from your repertoire and the computer plays the opponent moves. This is also open source.

**ChessTempo.com**
Similar functionality in the "Opening Trainer." The interface is a bit different but it tracks what lines you have learned a bit differently which is nice.

See more at this related answer.

# Answer
> 2 votes
You can try chessable.com, it is possible to create your own course by importing pgns. The spaced repetition software will then test you on the variations in the pgn the same as the purchasable courses from other authors.

After signing in to the website open the drop down menu and select 'Create a Course' then follow the instructions.

I believe it isn't 100% free as there is a soft limit to the number of free courses you can own. But the functionality is good.

# Answer
> 2 votes
SCID allows what you want. Look at "Play" menu and any of the submenus "Opening training" or "Tactics" or "Review game" or "Calculation of variations.

---
Tags: software, training, chessbase
---


# Question
Title: What is the history behind the famous author H. G. Wells writing against the game of chess?
Here are some quotes by by famous English author H. G. Wells.:

> “There is no remorse like the remorse of chess. \[..\] It is a curse upon man. **There is no happiness in chess.**\[source\]

> “The passion for playing chess is one of the most unaccountable in the world. It slaps the theory of natural selection in the face. It is the most absorbing of occupations. The least satisfying of desires. A nameless excrescence upon life. **It annihilates a man.** You have, let us say, a promising politician, a rising artist that you wish to destroy. Dagger or bomb are archaic and unreliable - but teach him, inoculate him with chess.” \[source\]

Why did he make negative statements for about chess seeing as he was an intellectual? These might be his opinions, but it would be interesting to know the basis of those. For the record Wikipedia doesn't have any mention of chess.

# Answer
> 8 votes
One cannot do better than simply refer you to the work of chess historian Bill Wall on this subject: https://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/articles/hgwells.htm

Wells did not hate chess. He revered it for its power to absorb people, even the most intelligent of people, and captivate them for a lifetime. He followed the games of the top players with avid interest (Henry Bird, Wilhelm Steinitz the first World Champion, and Emmanuel Lasker the second are all mentioned by name in his essay) and particularly enjoyed rapid chess. What you are reading is literary pretence: he was infected by "chess mania" at the time of the essay, and, it seems, never quite shook the bug.

He also talks about how he learnt the game a pretty unique way (at least I'd say): once he knew the movements of pieces, his teacher, ostensibly his father or brother, taught him *checkmates* first (KQP vs K, etc.). And that way you "always play a winning game in these happy days of your chess childhood" – just the dopamine rush that would make an addict of a new student!

---
Tags: history, quotations
---


# Question
Title: In Crazyhouse, what is the minimum number of moves to achieve maximum material difference?
If one side captures everything and promotes all pawns (including the opponent's re-placed pawns) to a queen, it is possible to achieve 206 points of material difference 18 queens, 4 rooks/knights/4 bishops).

Here is an example solution.

```
[FEN "8/4k3/8/8/RNBQ1BNR/RNBQKBNR/QQQQQQQQ/QQQQQQQQ b - - 36 137"]

```

What is the theoretical minimum amount of moves for achieving this material difference, and how would one implement it?

# Answer
> 4 votes
This solution finishes with White's 54th move. Every White move other than the early e-pawn moves is one of the following:

1. A promotion
2. A pawn capture by a Queen moving from the eighth rank
3. Placing a piece
4. Placing a pawn on the seventh rank

```
[FEN ""]

[Variant "Crazyhouse"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 c6 3. dxc6 a5 4. p@c7 Ra6 5. cxb7 Rb6 6. p@a7 Rxb2 7. axb8=Q Rxa2 8. bxc8=Q Rxc2 9. p@a7 p@b2 10. Qxb2 Rxd2 11. a8=Q e5 12. Qxa5 Rxf2 13. p@b7 Ke7 14. b8=Q p@b3 15. Q8xb3 Kf6 16. p@b7 Rxg2 17. b8=Q p@b5 18. Q8xb5 Rxh2 19. p@a7 p@a6 20. a8=Q Rd2 21. Qa8xa6+ Kg5 22. N@c3 Kf4 23. p@e7 Kg3 24. exf8=Q f6 25. p@f7 g6 26. fxg8=Q p@a7 27. N@g5 p@a3 28. Qfxa3 p@c5 29. B@h3 Rd7 30. cxd8=Q Re7 31. p@g7 Re8 32. gxh8=Q Rf8 33. Qhxh7 Re8 34. B@h6 Re7 35. p@f7 Rb7 36. f8=Q e4 37. Qfxf6 e3 38. Qgxg6 e2 39. p@e7 Rb8 40. e8=Q Rb6 41. p@b7 Rc6 42. b8=Q+ Rd6 43. Qbxa7 Rd7 44. Qcxc5 Rf7 45. Qexe2 Rf8 46. p@g7 Kh4 47. gxf8=Q Kg3 48. p@g7 Kh4 49. g8=Q Kg3 50. p@e7 Kh4 51. e8=Q Kg3 52. R@h8 Kh4 53. R@f7 Kg3 54. Q@g7

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
Reference solution in 58 moves by /u/CratylusG on reddit.com \- missing last three placements: https://lichess.org/fP8zuniL

```
[fen ""]

1. a4 b5 2. axb5 a6 3. bxa6 Bb7 4. axb7 Ra2 5. e4 f5 6. exf5 g6 7. fxg6 Rxb2 8. gxh7 Rxc2 9. hxg8=Q Rxd2 10. P@g7 Rxf2 11. gxh8=Q P@b2 12. Qxb2 Rxg2 13. P@h7 c5 14. h8=Q P@c3 15. Qhxc3 c4 16. Qgxc4 Rxh2 17. P@h7 P@d4 18. h8=Q d5 19. Qhxd4 P@g3 20. P@a7 Bh6 21. axb8=Q Kf7 22. Qbxg3 Bf4 23. b8=Q Ke6 24. Qbxf4 Qb8 25. N@f5 Kf7 26. P@c7 Rh8 27. cxb8=Q e5 28. Qbxe5 Rb8 29. P@c7 P@b3 30. cxb8=Q P@d6 31. Q8xb3 Kf8 32. B@d8 Kf7 33. P@b7 Kf8 34. b8=Q Kf7 35. N@e7 Kf8 36. Qbxd6 Kf7 37. P@b7 Kf8 38. b8=Q Kf7 39. Q8b4 Kf8 40. P@b7 Kf7 41. b8=Q Kf8 42. Q8b5 Kf7 43. P@a7 Kf8 44. P@b7 Kf7 45. P@c7 Kf8 46. a8=Q Kf7 47. b8=Q Kf8 48. c8=Q Kf7 49. R@e6 Kf8 50. Qaxd5 Kf7 51. P@a7 Kf8 52. a8=Q Kf7 53. P@a7 Kf8 54. Qac6 Kf7 55. a8=Q *

```

---
Tags: problems, records, crazyhouse
---


title: How to debug Move Generation function?

text:
# Question
Title: How to debug Move Generation function?
I'm writing a chess engine, and I'm testing that the move generator is working correctly using a perft() function. In perft position 2 my engine appears to be 90 moves short at ply 2. How do authors of other engines then debug their engines? Is there a full list of perft moves available online somewhere?

The obvious issue with using an established engine to enumerate the moves is if there's a bug in the move generation function in the established engine.

# Answer
> The obvious issue with using an established engine to enumerate the moves is if there's a bug in the move generation function in the established engine.

Stockfish is always perfectly correct.

Goto https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/src/search.cpp, add a `std::cout` in `perft()`. Recompile, and then run perft. Redirect your results to a text file.

Sort the results with: `sort SFMoves.txt > SortedSFMoves.txt`.

Similarly, repeat for your generator, sort it and then compare with Stockfish.

Common mistakes:

* En-passpant
* Underpromotion
* Promote with a capture

Please check the special cases in your code.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I know this is an old question, but I strongly recommend the use of the perftree program. It compares the results of your `perft` function with the one implemented by Stockfish. This helped me a lot to debug my move generator.

For instance, if you run `perft(6)` and find out that, e.g., the number of moves from **a2a3** is larger/lower than it should be, you update the position by doing such move, and then you run `perft(5)`. You repeat this until you reach depth 1, where you can find out what kind of moves you are allowing (pseudolegal) or missing.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, computer-chess
---


# Question
Title: Why did the Magnus app resign in this game?
Recently on Play Magnus app, for age 29, I ended up in following position and the Magnus app resigned.

```
[FEN "rn3bnr/1ppk1ppp/p2P4/3p4/1P2P1P1/8/P1PP2P1/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1"]

```

I just wanted to post & confirm if anyone can make any sense out of it or it was mostly a bug/Fluke (which is what I think)

Note: It was on iPad running an old ios(10.x)

# Answer
Black's position is completely hopeless. Any chess game between players of a somewhat decent level would end by resignation here. So the computer resigning here is not a malfunction but definitely an intended feature.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, carlsen, resigning
---


# Question
Title: Are there any gambits involving sacrificing a piece?
My impression of the word "gambit" is the sacrifice of a pawn or several pawns at the opening stage of a chess game. However, based on the definition on Wikipedia, a gambit (from ancient Italian gambetto, meaning "to trip") is a chess opening in which a player, more often White, sacrifices material, *usually a pawn*, with the hope of achieving a resulting advantageous position.

The phrase "usually a pawn" seems to imply that a gambit could be a sacrifice of other pieces. Am wondering what are examples of gambits that sacrifice a knight, or a bishop, or a rook, or even the queen, or a combination of these pieces?

I am not talking about blunders at the opening stage that cause loss of material. I am asking about openings that stand the test of time where one side willfully sacrifices some material other than pawns to earn some advantage.

A related question: What is the "biggest" gambit that is still being played at the master's or above level? That is, a gambit that white sacrifices a combination of biggest value of pieces and yet obtained enough advantage development and/or space; at the same time, the game is somewhat acceptable for black as well.

# Answer
This is kind of out there (virtually nobody plays it as white and even fewer allow it as black) but there is a rather crazy queen sacrifice line in the Grand Prix:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 "]
1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Ng5 Nf6 5.Bc4 Bg4!? 6.Bxf7+ Kd7 7.Qxg4+ Nxg4 8.Be6+ Kc6 9.Bxg4

```

5...Bg4!? by black is quite rare and combative, inviting (daring) white to initiate the festivities where 5...e6 instead is calmer. So white takes it up and sacrifices the queen for just two minors and the hope of long-term play against black's lack of development. Yes, there isn't any quick tactical win, just *long-term pressure while down a queen*.

The position has occurred several times in master play (check the lichess database) but is extremely rare, and most examples not recent. It was even featured on chessgames.com many years back: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1648780
> 27 votes

# Answer
A commonly known knight sacrifice by white is the Fried Liver Attack:

```
[FEN ""]
[ECO "C57"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5?! (5... Na5 {The main line.} 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 {Black has compensation in form of initiative for the pawn.}) 6. Nxf7!? (6. d4 {The Lolli variation.}) Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6 8. Nc3

```

White has a strong attack against the king in the middle of the board.
> 25 votes

# Answer
The Cochrane Gambit:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7

```

This is relatively sound gambit, Topalov has played it against Kramnik.

The Traxler Gambit:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Nxf7 Bxf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7. Nxh8

```

White does have an option of taking on `f7` with the bishiop `5. Bxf7` which leads to only a pawn sacrifice and less complicated position, but black does allow for a greater material sacrifice.

Gambit in Ruy Lopez. I don't remember the name of this, but it is a piece sacrifice.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. d4 fxe4
5. Nxe5 Nxe5 6. dxe5 c6 7. Nc3 cxb5 8. Nxe4

```

There is also a gambit in the Sveshnikov:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5
9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nd5 f5 11. Bxb5 axb5 12. Nxb5

```

It appears to be relatively sound as Alexey Shirov used on several occasions. White has a different option to sacrifice a piece `11. Nxb5`, but this line is less popular.
> 24 votes

# Answer
The 'Halloween Gambit' or 'Müller-Schulze Gambit' is a knight gambit in the (often characterized as dull) Four Knights Game:

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Blokje"]
[Black "Platypussy"]
[StartPly "7"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe5 5. d4 Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.Bd3 Bb4 10.O-O Bxc3 11.bxc3 d6 12.e6 fxe6 13.dxe6 Nf6 14.g4 O-O 15.g5 Ne8 16.f5 Ne5 17.Re1 Nxd3?? 18.e7 (5... Ng6 {This is the old refutation, but it's still hard to defend.} 6. e5 Ng8 7. Bc4 d5 8. Bxd5 c6)

```

As the famous Dutch writer Tim Krabbé phrases it:

> This \[4. Nxe5\] irritated me. I vaguely knew about this move - not as a real opening, but as some sort of a student's joke, something silly that might be played at the end of a long blitz-and-boozing session. Wasn't this the 'Irish Gambit', the one with the anecdote where they asked the inventor on his death bed how he had thought of it, and he had answered: 'I didn't see it was protected'?

Even though a 'refutation' had already been published in the mid 50s, it's surprisingly hard to defend for Black, especially in blitz games. The Tim Krabbé article I linked to, though somewhat old, is a nice introduction; it features several games where IMs and GMs are beaten by a lower-rated player with this gambit.
> 21 votes

# Answer
The **Perenyi Gambit** is an important theoretical variation that has been favored by GMs like J.Polgar or A.Shirov. White sacrifices at least one piece, and often two:

```
[FEN ""]
[ECO "C57"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. g4!? e5 8. Nf5 g6 9. g5 (9.Bg2) gxf5 10. exf5 d5 11. Qf3 d4

```

See, for instance, Polgar-Anand, 1999.

Or this game by Svidler against Gelfand.
> 16 votes

# Answer
Not sure if this is considered a gambit, but one of the lines of the Steinitz variation of the Caro Kann defense involves white sacrificing a knight:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 "]
[Event "IBM Man-Machine, New York USA"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1997.05.??"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Deep Blue"]
[Black "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B17"]
[PlyCount "37"]
[StartPly "14"]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ngf6 6.Bd3 e6 7.N1f3 h6 8.Nxe6 Qe7 9.O-O fxe6 10.Bg6+ Kd8 11.Bf4 b5 12.a4 Bb7 13.Re1 Nd5 14.Bg3 Kc8 15.axb5 cxb5 16.Qd3 Bc6 17.Bf5 exf5 18.Rxe7 Bxe7 19.c4 1-0

```

There are only a few games involving this sacrifice, and this is due to the position requiring accurate play from white to keep the advantage.
> 13 votes

# Answer
The Frankenstein-Dracula variation of the Vienna game features a Rook sacrifice by Black (effectively an exchange sacrifice however, since the Knight will not escape).

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Qh5 Nd6 5.Bb3 Nc6 6.Nb5 g6 7.Qf3 f5 8.Qd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Nxa8

```

Impressively, this variation seems to favour Black.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Légal Trap is one of my most favorite games. It's just so simple, and yet gives a powerful reminder of what sacrifices can allow you to do. White sacrifices the Queen, but in exchange Black concedes the game!

```
[FEN ""]
[ECO "C57"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 d6 4. Nc3 Bg4?! 5. h3 Bh5? 6. Nxe5! Bxd1?? 7. Bxf7+ Ke7 8. Nd5#

```
> 4 votes

# Answer
The Muzio Gambit in the King's Gambit is pretty well-known:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 (4... Bg7 {About as common on Lichess in the 1600-2000 range as 4... g4. If you're going to play for the Muzio, you'll have to be happy with reaching this position about half the time.}) 5. O-O!? gxf3

```

This is virtually unseen at the GM level, but is very dangerous at lower levels. I could find only one game between two GMs: a blitz game between Hikaru Nakamura and Dmitry Andreikin at the 2010 World Blitz TournamentNakamura v Andreikin in 2010, which Nakamura won.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Wch Blitz 5th"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/iNs71Tbl"]
[Date "2010.11.18"]
[Round "36"]
[White "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[WhiteElo "2741"]
[Black "Andreikin, Dmitry"]
[BlackElo "2683"]
[ECO "C37"]
[Opening "King's Gambit Accepted, Muzio Gambit, Wild Muzio Gambit"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O gxf3 6. Qxf3 Bh6 7. d4 Qh4 8. Nc3 Nc6 9. Nd5 Kd8 10. c3 d6 11. Nxf4 Nge7 12. g3 Qg4 13. Qg2 Bd7 14. h3 Qg8 15. Nh5 Bxc1 16. Raxc1 Qg5 17. g4 Ng6 18. Rce1 Rf8 19. Qg3 Qh4 20. Qxh4+ Nxh4 21. Nf6 Ng6 22. Nxh7 Rh8 23. Ng5 Be8 24. Bxf7 Ke7 25. Kg2 Rf8 26. Bb3 Bd7 27. Kg3 Na5 28. Bf7 Nh8 29. e5 Nxf7 30. exd6+ Kxd6 31. Rf6+ Kd5 32. Nxf7 Nc6 33. b3 Rae8 34. Rc1 Ke4 35. d5 Ne5 36. Re1+ Kxd5 37. Rd1+ Ke4 38. Rf4+ Ke3 39. Re1+ Kd2 40. Rxe5 Bc6 41. Rxe8 Rxe8 42. g5 Re3+ 43. Kh4 Bd7 44. Rd4+ 1-0

```
> 4 votes

# Answer
The Luccini Gambit sacs a rook.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 f5 5. Ng5 f4 6. Nf7 Qh4

```

The Nakhmanson gambit sacs some pawns and a bishop

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. Nc3 dxc3 7. Bxf7+ Kxf7 8. Qd5+

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
There is the Bronstein Gambit in the Two-knights Defence

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.d3 h6 7.Nf3 e4 8.dxe4

```
> 2 votes

# Answer
The Halloween gambit(dubious) sacrifises a knight for a large centre: 1.e4 e4 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5?!

The optimal line is shown here: 4...Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 d5!? 8.Bd5 c6 9.Bc4/9.Bb3.

```
             r1bqkbnr/pp3ppp/2p3n1/4P3/2BP4/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 1 9

```
> 0 votes

# Answer
Look up the Jerome Gambit in the Italian, where a bishop is sacrificed. It's not sound, but it's a lot of fun to play in bullet chess.

I found this old post because I was looking for information on it. I just learned the name even though I've been using it since I started started playing bullet in February. When my opponent tries pushing a6 and b5 to attack the bishop on c4 and I've used this tempos to develop the knight and open up the queen's bishop with d3.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, gambits, sacrifice
---


# Question
Title: Chess games similar to Morphy versus the Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard
In college I memorized a few chess games, and the only one that has stayed in my memory is Morphy vs. the Duke.

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Paris"]
[Site "Paris"]
[Date "1858"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Paul Morphy"]
[Black "Duke Karl / Count Isouard"]
[ECO "C41"]
[PlyCount "33"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4 4.dxe5 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 dxe5 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Qb3 Qe7
8.Nc3 c6 9.Bg5 b5 10.Nxb5 cxb5 11.Bxb5+ Nbd7 12.O-O-O Rd8
13.Rxd7 Rxd7 14.Rd1 Qe6 15.Bxd7+ Nxd7 16.Qb8+ Nxb8 17.Rd8# 1-0

```

Are there games similar to this one - short and with dramatic finishes - that you would recommend reviewing / memorizing after a decade spent not reading chess games?

# Answer
Morphy is great! I also am fond of the 1956 game Donald Byrne vs Robert James Fischer (when Fischer was 13 years old!) known as "The Game of the Century". Link

But of course there are many games that are great. Chessbase has an app for the Android or iPhone with a database of many of the great games to look at - just $5.
> 3 votes

# Answer
It's hard to beat Morphy when it comes to a dominance over contemporaries that leads to short, memorable games that culminate in utterly violent punishment of the failure to develop one's pieces. And while it's also hard to top the opera box game from the OP for a seamless destruction of a poorly developed army, the following two dismantlings are quite nice and in the same spirit, though different enough to be useful additions I think.

In the first game, Meek goes for a premature attack that, while it prevents Morphy from castling, primarily serves to waste time. (Note how `5...Nh6!`, rather than say `5...Ne5?`, makes it so that the h8 rook gets in the game after Meek's intended follow-up, while the remaining white pieces are still sitting at home.) Meek continues to neglect development (8 of the 21 total white moves are by the queen in this game), and after the clumsy `17.Nd2?`, Morphy smoothly takes advantage of the fact that the white queen must guard e2 in order to bring out his last pieces with tempo.

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Mobile"]
[Site "Mobile"]
[Date "1855"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Alexander Beaufort Meek"]
[Black "Paul Morphy"]
[ECO "C44"]
[PlyCount "42"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. Ng5?! Nh6! (5...Ne5? 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5) 6. Nxf7
Nxf7 7. Bxf7+ Kxf7 8. Qh5+ g6 9. Qxc5 d6 10. Qb5 Re8 11. Qb3+
d5 12. f3 Na5 13. Qd3 dxe4 14. fxe4 Qh4+ 15. g3 Rxe4+ 16. Kf2
Qe7 17. Nd2? Re3! 18. Qb5 c6! 19. Qf1 (19.Qxa5 Re2+ 20.Kg1 Qe3+ 21.Kf1 Bh3#) Bh3! 20. Qd1 (20.Qxh3 Re2+ 21.Kf3 Qe3+ 22.Kg4 h5+) Rf8 21. Nf3 Ke8
0-1

```

The second game is Morphy's classic destruction of Paulsen via queen sacrifice. Just a handful of poor, slow moves leave White's pieces mostly out-of-play on the queenside, and his king is exposed to a brutal attack. A great lesson on the role a few wasted moves can play, and that one should be alert to bold shots like `17...Qxf3!!` if the opponent's pieces are too far away and can't regroup to defend the king.

```
[fen ""]
[Event "1st American Chess Congress"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1857"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Louis Paulsen"]
[Black "Paul Morphy"]
[ECO "C48"]
[PlyCount "56"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bc5 5. O-O O-O 6. Nxe5
Re8 7. Nxc6 dxc6 8. Bc4 b5 9. Be2 Nxe4 10. Nxe4 Rxe4 11. Bf3
Re6 12. c3? (12.d3) Qd3! 13. b4 Bb6 14. a4?! (14.Re1) bxa4 15. Qxa4 Bd7 16. Ra2? (16.Qa6)
Rae8 17. Qa6 Qxf3!! 18. gxf3 Rg6+ 19. Kh1 Bh3 20. Rd1 {Not 20 Rg1 Rxg1+ 21
Kxg1 Re1+} Bg2+ 21. Kg1 Bxf3+ 22. Kf1 Bg2+ 23. Kg1 Bh3+ 24. Kh1 Bxf2
25. Qf1 Bxf1 26. Rxf1 Re2 27. Ra1 Rh6
28. d4 Be3 0-1

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
These games are called *miniatures*.

You can find them in your database by simply filtering games with the required number of moves ( in order for a game to be considered a miniature, the total number of moves played in the game should be **less** than 30 ).

There are some books you can buy, like *this one* or *this one*, but I prefer the above method.

You could also search online databases if you do not have your own.

My advice to you is to search *classical* games ( the games of the old masters dating from years 1400 up to 1700 ), since the level of the defense in those days was low, enabling a lot of beautiful miniatures.

## EDIT:

A New Year gift from me to you : Which was that Marshall's game with that spectacular Queen sac?

Enjoy! :)))

Hopefully this will help.

Best regards.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I would recommend the games collection from the book "Gm-Ram: Essential Grandmaster Chess Knowledge" by Rashid Ziyatdinov. Not all the games are the miniatures, but many of them.

The author suggests that to become a chess master, one has to remember by heart some positions and games. It looks aligned with your goal (reviewing / memorizing).

I've googled by "gm-ram chess games", the first link points to the collection https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1003578.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: master-games, famous-games, memorization, recommendations, morphy
---


title: Lasker (?) on strategy and tactics

text:
# Question
Title: Lasker (?) on strategy and tactics
Many years ago I read (in a Russian book) a saying

> Strategy is creating true values; tactics is refuting the false ones.

which the book attributed to Emmanuel Lasker.

Does anybody know where Lasker (if it was him indeed) say that?

PS: I wish I remember what book was that.

# Answer
I suppose you meant this one:

> "By positional play a master tries to prove and exploit true values, whereas by combinations he seeks to refute false values".

https://www.quotemaster.org/qd83c54f436b2ade86c4d1e5b217b40a4

Most likely published in Lasker's Chess Manual (which is a great book btw).
> 3 votes

---
Tags: strategy, tactics, quotations, lasker, reference-request
---


# Question
Title: Should you always try your best (play as if your opponent is a grandmaster)?
Should you always play with your "best" skills no matter how (un)skilled your opponent is?

Is there a situation where intentionally not playing to the best of your abilities is a good strategy? Like, let's say you're playing against a chess noob. You don't need to waste moves defending your army because your opponent probably won't even notice the hanging pieces. You can checkmate your opponent faster by doing things that are usually considered bad strategies, such as moving your queen out too early in the game.

Additionally, I saw in the Chess.com mobile app that its "best move" hints change relative to the computer opponent's level. Seems like you should play against newbies differently than how you play against grandmasters.

Is purposely "not trying your best" sometimes advantageous?

# Answer
> 28 votes
## Is it a good strategy to always play like a grandmaster?

Obviously yes, but unfortunately 99% of chess players are unable to do this even if they wanted to. ;)

## Is it a good strategy to knowingly play moves that you know (or strongly suspect) to be mistakes?

No.

"Mistake" in the sense that there is an answer that screws you if your opponent finds it. Because either they find it (short term downside) or it works out and you just reinforced a flawed pattern in your brain (long term downside). Blundering your pieces left and right is not a sound strategy, not even against "noobs" (after all, you still need to have some material left to actually mate).

## Is it a good strategy to knowingly play moves that you know (or strongly suspect) to not be best (but still okay)?

Sometimes.

In many situations, there are multiple candidate moves and it may have some benefit to play the move you judge second or third instead of the "best" one.

Sometimes it's better to settle for a small but safe strategical advantage (that you are confident to transform into a win against a "noob" anyways) instead of a potentially big advantage that needs a lot of precise tactical play to hold (with the additional risk that you miscalculated somewhere).

Keeping the game less complicated when ahead gives the better player some meta advantage (he's less likely to blunder, and as long as he doesn't, he will eventually win), which might make an otherwise suboptimal move the most advantageous.

Or vice versa, sometimes it may be worth it to go for a move that gives your opponent some advantage in one aspect of the game, while you only get a smaller one in some other aspect. Most gambits come to mind, for example. What matters is that you still should not play clear mistakes, only slightly "worse" moves where you do get some compensation. Sacrificing a pawn for initiative that's probably worth less than a pawn, or even sacrificing a piece for a mate attack is fine. Sacrificing initiative by moving out the queen too early for some hit-or-miss chance to apply the Scholar's mate is not a good strategy, because if they find a good answer, you end up with no compensation at all; and if they don't, they are so inexperienced that any healthy opening would probably have won easily (and quickly!) as well without using a strategy that is useless against better players (again: either short or long term disadvantage).

Making the game more complicated when things are even gives the better player some meta advantage (he's more likely to find a better way through the jungle), which might make an otherwise suboptimal move the most advantageous.

However, these kinds of strategies are used by grandmasters as well, so ironically you are still playing like them.

## Is it a good strategy to knowingly play moves that you are not sure about (they may be good, they may be bad)?

No.

Often, this cannot be avoided, of course (your skill sets limits to calculation depth and positional judgment). Thus everyone has to do it to some degree. It's not a "good" strategy though. Ideally you should always try your best to evaluate a given position.

# Answer
> 19 votes
No, you should not.

There are serious games, these are less serious games, there are chess lessons with kids. If you play all games at your maximum strength:

1. kids are going to hate you, because they don't like losing.
2. people is going to hate you, because spending 5-10 minutes thinking about every move in a casual game makes everyone bored to the death.
3. in a very short period of time you'll "burn out", you'll hate the game and you'll never play it again.

So, unless you're playing for the world title or in a very serious tournament, try to make it fun. Don't intentionally blunder or give away pieces (though this might be required sometimes when dealing with kids =), but play risky, adventurous games, so even if your opponent loses, (s)he does it with a smile and tells you: "Thank you for a wonderful game!" afterwards.

After all, chess is just a game...

# Answer
> 17 votes
It seems to me the real question here is:

### Should you always play as if your opponent is a grand master?

You seem to have defined "playing your best" as playing the moves you would make against a grand master, and any other moves, even when played against other opponents, as being lesser. But the rules of chess do not prohibit using your knowledge about your opponent to your advantage, and so I would argue that the 'best' way to play is the moves that are most likely to win *against your current opponent*. So, when playing someone with less experience, changing your strategy accordingly is still "trying your best".

As for whether you should always play as if against a grand master, that depends on your goals. If you want to be sure to win, the grandmaster strategy seems best. A novice would have to be extremely lucky to find a vulnerability in it and exploit it effectively. If your goal is to 'smoke' the novice and checkmate as quickly as possible, then your best strategy is probably as you said, to take risks, banking on your opponent not knowing how to punish you for them, and to be aggressive, banking on being able to slip away if you get in trouble. If you play as if against a grand master while actually being against a novice, you'll waste time protecting against moves your opponent won't make.

# Answer
> 10 votes
If your goal is simply to win chess games, then yes; you should always play like a grandmaster (to the best of your abilities) even against less skilled opponents (again, this is if your goal is simply to win. Really putting the squeeze on a novice is a great way to make that person lose interest in chess).

You said against novices that :

> You don't need to waste moves defending your army because your opponent probably won't even notice the hanging pieces.

To this I say a few things. First of all, a chess strategy that assumes "your opponent probably won't notice" is pretty flawed. While you may have a high chance of success against novices, people tend to develop the strategies they use the most often. If you repeatedly leave hanging pieces, you'll slowly find yourself checking for hanging pieces less often.

In addition, if you've misjudged the quality of your opponent and blunder away a free knight early, you've begun that game down on material. Blundering a piece away isn't so bad when you're up substantial material, but that's a decision made on the quality of your opponent's position, not the quality of your opponent.

Lastly, again, "people tend to develop the strategies they use the most often." The more games you play sub-optimally, the fewer games you play optimally. I know that's obvious, but you have to consider that in the long term, your skills won't be developed if you avoid using them.

> You can checkmate your opponent faster by doing things that are usually considered bad strategies, such as moving your queen out too early in the game.

That's potentially true, but the goal of the game isn't to checkmate your opponent as quickly as possible. With the exception of a few notable games, it's not important if you beat your opponent in 4 moves or 100, so why risk the game? For example, you could try Scholar's mate against a novice and probably win most of the time. However, if your opponent is familiar with this, now you've played a sub-optimal opening for pretty much no reason.

> Additionally, I discovered in the Chess.com mobile app that its "best move" hints change relative to the computer opponent's level.

This is likely because chess engines view time as a precious resource. When you ask for the "best" move and the computer knows it's playing a novice, it's not going to delve as deep into lines, because it doesn't have to. This does undercut my answer a little, but keep in mind computer play and human play is very different. A computer has a harder time allocating time for future moves, and so you'll find it trying to shave precious seconds off where possible in case it needs them later.

A more interesting question though, is **Should I make the best move available every time?**

Interestingly, the answer to *that* question is no. That's because chess is a strategy game, and a large part of strategy is evaluating your opponent. When outmatched, you'll sometimes see grandmasters start with a traditionally weaker opening. This is because they've prepared it; they've analyzed most of the opening lines, and they know their opponent probably hasn't. As such, they might be able to leverage a small advantage that's less obvious to their opponent right away.

In addition, there's some interesting psychology behind making sub-par moves. In particular, Mikhail Tal was notorious for deliberately ignoring the best move available. However, he had the skill required to back up these moves, so players quickly became *very* cautious when he gave them an "obvious" response. That often led to them making their own sub-par moves.

> Tal's style of play was so intimidating that James Eade listed Tal as one of the three players contemporaries were most afraid of playing against (the others being Capablanca and Fischer). However, while Capablanca and Fischer were feared because of their extreme technical skill, Tal was feared because of the possibility of being on the wrong side of a soon-to-be-famous brilliancy.

There are plenty of stories of Tal making "bad" moves which confused or concerned his opponents enough to give him an advantage, but that's similar to the "weaker opening" point as well; Tal knew his advantages weren't strictly based in material.

When evaluating their own play, your opponents will likely assume you'll make optimal moves. If you do, they'll have a line prepared and it's truly a battle of who has better chess strategy. But when you throw in a few moves they didn't expect, they have to reevaluate their own line and they have to try and understand what you're thinking. Tal was an expert at this; his habit of making unexpected moves made it harder for his opponents to evaluate deep lines. If done correctly, this can give you a larger advantage than the material or positioning you've offered.

# Answer
> 8 votes
As a lower level player, I go a little farther away from this then most others seem to.

In general, I assume that my opponent will find the best move I can think of (that isn't anywhere near grandmaster strength, honestly, but that's the best I can do).

At times, I am willing to do the following:

* Make a slightly inferior move (according to a grandmaster) that puts me in a position I play better (for me, that means endgame, for others, it may mean tactics or positional play)
* Make an opening move that the book says is inferior, but it would take a higher level opponent to exploit it (that way, my opponents stop playing grandmaster moves they learned in a book)
* If my opponent is in time pressure, play a sacrifice I don't think they can find a way out of in their remaining time
* If I believe my opponent is obviously weaker, play a move that will end the game quicker so I get some more rest time before the next round (I'm taking a chance here, but the reward of being fresh for the next game is more than enough for the risk of my opponent actually finding the best play this game)
* If losing, set a trap for my opponent and see if I can get back in the game (losing quicker is better than losing slower anyway, and maybe I can get a draw out of it)

# Answer
> 7 votes
**Should you always play your best:** Yes
**Does that mean playing like your opponent is a grandmaster:** Sometimes.

Chess is a game. You get to decide what the purpose of playing that game is. It's *entirely* up to you. I can't tell you why you should play chess, Kasparov can't tell you why you should play chess, your wife can't tell you why you should play chess (okay, maybe you should listen to your wife). It's all up to you.

Now the "always play your best" argument is typically given to lower ranking players to encourage them to not play sloppy. It's easy to get dependent on cheap strategies which don't work at higher levels of play. If you don't "play your best," you risk such dependency. If you always play as though the other player is a grandmaster, you avoid this issue.

Now I will note that one does not just play a grandmaster on the board. Grandmasters study the personality of their opponent at every single chance they get. They aren't trying to beat the king on the board. They're trying to beat the person. Thus, if you see your opponent has a personality glitch that may cause them to make a bad move, *abuse it*! That's the best way to win.

But what if your goal is not to win? Chess is just one part of life. There's a lot more out there. One of the other answers points out that if you do nothing but slaughter novices left and right, they stop wanting to play with you. Did you care about them spending time with you? If you did, then you probably shouldn't slaughter them. You shouldn't play like a grandmaster was across the table.

But you also don't want to be sloppy. You can't just go make stupid moves because then you aren't challenging yourself. Then, when the grandmaster does come along, you're hosed because you're out of practice playing carefully.

A hybrid solution, which I highly recommend is, **"Play to maximize your learning." Don't play risky moves just because you can get away with them. Play risky moves *to practice playing in difficult situations*. Handicap yourself to challenging yourself.** Play just bad enough to get into a position where their skill level plus the handicap you give them is *just* enough to force you to play your best -- to play like there was a Grandmaster on the other side of the table. Hang a rook, not because you think you can get away with it, but because you believe that, with a 1 rook advantage, your particular opponent will actually challenge you and force you to play your best.

Or, perhaps less drastically, if you're used to playing an open aggressive style of chess, consider putting yourself into closed detailed analytical positions just to see how you handle them.

Then every game you play teaches you about yourself.

And, as an added bonus, you are intentionally putting your opponent into a position where they stand a chance to win *if* they play their best. And that makes for better opponents. Soon you may find they learn enough to surprise you!

# Answer
> 4 votes
No.

My friend and I would often play chess, just as something to do while we're hanging out. One day, I paused and started analyzing the board. He said, forget it. Let's do something else. Where's the Frisbee?

He wasn't afraid of losing. He was a much, much better player than me. It's just not the type of game he wanted to play that day.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Depending on how "best" means. Say you play Sicilian Dragon the best against e4 but also have decent knowledge in French. Your opponent always play as white 1.c4 but never 1.e4.

Now you two meet at the last round of a major tournament while you two are tied for first. Whoever wins this game gets the trophy. He now opens 1.e4.

Should you go into Sicilian Dragon where he's obviously heavily prepared or do you go French?

# Answer
> 3 votes
While it's a different game, this **is somewhat** done in at least one game where two opponents play tactically with pieces on a board with no hidden knowledge, which makes me think it would apply to chess as well.

A few years ago, a computer (AlphaGo) beat a world-class Go player (Lee Sedol) for the first time.

One thing many Go experts picked up in, was that AlphaGo's approach favoured a more certain win (even if only by a much smaller margin or less 'dramatically'), over a bigger win. So it might well prefer a play that was less "optimal" than most human masters or grandmasters would choose, if it concluded that it would give a more sure 50.1% chance of an eventual win (even if by just one counter), for example.

*(A chess equivalent/analogy might be a calculation (in machine play terms) that following 'ordinary' grandmasters quality play would give a player an estimated 63.1% chance of an 'ordinary' and 'good' win, but allowing the play to degenerate and drag out into much slower and apparently even 'pointless' or 'incomprehensible' endplay actually gives a 63.2% chance eventually of a very narrow win, even though this is a course that (almost) no human player would pursue. Note that this is my own understanding and analogy, so I could be a bit wrong, but hopefully it gives the idea.)*

This also makes it difficult to answer the question, because it raises the question of what the "best" move should actually be defined to be. Perhaps not necessarily the one that grandmasters think it is?

# Answer
> 3 votes
If you play a strategy that can be countered more easy but can also lead to a faster victory against someone with lower expected skill, that's just normal risk and reward for me. You increase your chance of defeat for a faster victory.

Playing worse, or even losing is useful, if you want someone to play more games with you. Like when you teach someone or if you for any other reason want others to play with you instead of not doing it any more because of frustration. In that case, choosing a nonoptimal strategy in a single game is part of a larger strategy over multiple games.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Should you always try your best?

No.

Simply put some things are not worth it. Sometimes you run into a position that would take too much time to play for no reward. Sometimes you need your opponent to teach you want to do in certain positions because you have no idea. In those cases it's usually best to resign.

Really, you need to figure out how hard you ***should*** go and how hard you're ***willing*** to go for every game.

A word of warning, every single action you make starts to build a habit; if you play too carelessly against a noob it will effect your chess game against stronger opponents. It might not be worth the extra effort to play "nice" when you have to unlearn some of the habits you've already developed and then relearn them later when you have to play against Magnus Carsen - that's 100% who you're playing against I already know lol.

You gotta know when to fold 'em.

# Answer
> 2 votes
## No when you want to teach something specific

A complete novice (in any game) does not know some of the strategies that lead to a win (in chess to a checkmate) and you need them to become aware of them. It doesn't even have to be an immediate win, but a specific moves combination or gaining specific position in order to get a strong advantage. If you want to teach a person to be aware of this position, you need to expose them more often than you would in a normal course of a game. So you tend to build your strategy upon reaching this specific position rather than winning itself. It doesn't mean though that you should give up defending your pieces or just leaving easy picks (unless it's an intentional sacrifice to show a trap one might fall into) - it teaches bad habits rather than anything else. But you still use moves that could be considered **bad** if you play towards win *only*.

## Yes if you play a general game

No matter how skilled your opponent is, if you don't intend to teach something specific, but rather give a general practice, play as if your opponent is a grandmaster. **Use handicap to even your chances**. Explain that you do this to even your chances as the opponent might feel down for loosing despite you have removed one or two of your own pieces before the game even started.

You may give different versions of a handicap. Recently I played with a nephew who is still very novice. He "invented" a "great" strategy with just one flaw - it was ignoring I can move pieces as well ;-) I agreed for him to use this strategy and not use any of the pieces he was going to beat with his strategy nor defend them in any way under a condition the only moves he does with his knight (that was supposed to beat 3 of my pieces including the queen) were in this specific order. He could use any other piece in the meantime but knight had to take pieces in the exactly agreed order whenever he moved it. As you can imagine I did all my efforts to, despite being bound to this agreement, take as many other pieces as I could and get as close to winning as possible. I really had to challenge myself and the kid played one of his best parties (in terms of how much he analysed each move) - he made less casual moves than ever before. He eventually managed to complete the "3-moves-3-picks" strategy in something like 20 or more moves and only when he realised he is going to lose anyway and at that moment can no longer do anything about it.

The benefit was he had to focus on slightly less pieces (3 of mine were actually out of the game) so the game was somewhat easier for him to analyse but he knew I will put all my best efforts to make it a hard time for him ;-)

Other option is to limit the time you have for the game or burden yourself playing with more than one unskilled opponent at the same time (simultaneous exhibition)

On the other hand - I still remember the first game I won against my father without any handicap from his side. It was a real *pride* for me. Not even closely comparable to that when I was winning a handicapped game.

# Answer
> 2 votes
If I am in an inferior position against a player I deem no better than I am, instead of playing what Fritz will call the best move later, I'll probably look to set traps. In a similar situation, the Grandmaster (playing another Grandmaster) might just resign, if the position is bad enough, or reconcile himself to playing for a draw. Setting the opponent up for a trap is probably not a GM's best plan.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Always try your best no matter who you're playing. You never know if someone is underrated and better than they seem. Also, even if someone isn't that good of a player, you playing recklessly gives them more chances than they should have.

The only reason for playing differently against lower rated players is to finish the game slightly faster, but this is a poor reason. You can play safely without wasting too much time.

In general, I find that when I (subconsciously) play carelessly against low-rated players, I end up playing worse. This sometimes leads to the game being closer than it should be, which **makes the game longer than it would have been**.

As an interesting aside, I also find that, on the odd occasion I have played a grandmaster, I tend to play *extra safe*, again subconsciously. This also makes my play worse, since I'm not playing like I would have. So the strategy that yields best results is to play against everyone the same, if possible ignoring their playing strength. If I could consistently do this, I'd probably go up 50-100 rating points (and I'm around 2200).

# Answer
> 2 votes
Most analysis of chess assumes a kind of deterministic model of human gameplay. If you think of gameplay in more probabilistic terms you can see that there are times to play "sub-optimally".

For instance, imagine at a given move there is a trap that you know about. If the opponent falls into the trap, this is worth +2 evaluation points for you (ie, you win a piece for a pawn). If they don't fall into it, this is worth -1 evaluation points for you (you lose a pawn).

Let's assume all grandmasters know this trap, and will punish any attempt to use it (it is bad for you). Let us assume you are significantly less strong than a grandmaster :)

Should you play the trap? This is a probabilistic question. If the chance of your opponent falling into it is 50%, the correct move is probably to play it: the benefits outweigh the risks. If the chance of your opponent falling into it is 80%, I'd suggest that this is definitely the best move in the situation. (It's likely that there are ways to accurately quantify some of these probabilities by drawing on the lichess.org database for instance).

So, **no**: it is not always correct to play as if your opponent were a grandmaster, as you would be missing opportunities to capitalise on their likely forthcoming errors.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Timur Gareyev, a 28-year-old grandmaster set a world record for playing 48 games at once.

In the article about him it was noted he would play sharp gambits to bring the game to a quick conclusion.

Strategy varies.

---
Tags: strategy
---


title: What are the best chess blogs?

text:
# Question
Title: What are the best chess blogs?
I enjoy reading about chess and there is a number of blogs that I follow. And I do toy with the idea of starting a chess blog myself in a distant and uncertain future. So I want to tap your combined knowledge:

* What are the best chess blogs you know?
* What makes them so interesting?

(I know this is the kind of subjective question, stackexchange usually doesn't go for, but I think this could be a very worthwhile collection, possibly as community wiki.)

# Answer
> 8 votes
For players under 1800 USCF/FIDE, Dan Heisman's blog is an extremely helpful source. He has lots of information on:

* Thought process: how Hope Chess can cause losses
* Time Management: how to manage your time in order to be able to think as much as possible when the game gets complicated.
* Practical tips for different situations: when you're way ahead, it's a different game; when you're losing, complicate the position to try to get your opponent to make a mistake; when your opponent is in time pressure, don't blitz him, etc.
* Correcting misconceptions: player not recapturing because then he would get doubled pawns (safety is a 100, pawn structure is a 1), players loses because he didn't "see" something when in fact he didn't look out for it (thought process), player making a quick move in a critical position (hand-waving), Player playing a quick move because all moves look bad (acquiescing), Player rejecting move based on shallow or superficial analysis (quiescence error) . . . The list goes on, check out his blog!

# Answer
> 2 votes
* TheChessMind by Dennis Monokroussos. Pretty much the best alternative to the major chess news sites. Often a bit faster, commented games, interesting tidbits.
* The Streatham Brixton Chess Blog. Different writers from one club, write about vastly different topics. You'll get deeply researched articles about chess in art, chess politics, endgames, openings and and and …
* Dana blogs chess. A comparatively narrow view into the chess life of one enthusiastic amateur player. Often quite instructive.
* GM Smerdons blog. Not that much chess and not particularly frequently updated, but a very strong player and good writer giving his opinion and writing about his experiences.

Edit: I'll add some discontinued blogs, because there is still great stuff to discover:

* The Chessninja. Mig Greengard, journalist and Kasparov devotee, probably the most entertaining writer about chess, gives his take on current affairs.
* The Kenilworthian. Chess blog by Michael Goeller. A lot of stuff about tricky openings.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I would recommend Tim Krabbé's CHESS CURIOSITIES. It contains all sorts of interesting facts and stories related to chess. There are also many puzzles and interesting games, with comments, historical notes and curious details related to the games/problems/players. It is highly entertaining, instructive and well-written.

Majnu's blog is a great site for learning, especially for a beginner. In my opinion, Majnu is very talented in relating chess ideas in a clear, precise and easy-to-follow way. An excellent player and an excellent teacher, so his blog can hardly be anything else but excellent, as well.

# Answer
> 1 votes
A few days back, I wrote an article called Top 11 Chess Blogs You Love to Read. I added 11 chess blogs for it. It will worth reading.

I will add two main blogs from that list to this answer and why they are good.

**Chess.com blog**: They publish around 100 posts per month. So it can be introduced as the most active chess blog. Most articles are written by grandmasters and international masters.

**The Chess World BLog**: The author of this blog started this blog when his rating was under 1200. But after 2 years his rating was more than 2200. So this blog will be very helpful for beginner chess players who have the plan to get a 2000 rating in just under 2 years.

# Answer
> 0 votes
chess.com blog It is great blog with good few good articles written by chess masters (I read one for GM Hikaru this one)

# Answer
> -1 votes
Also check out Greg Shahade's blog .

# Answer
> -1 votes
My top two choices would be

---
Tags: recommendations, chess-blog
---


# Question
Title: How high of a rating do I need to play in a OTB tournament?
I have recently been playing a lot of online chess and have around a 2000 rating in rapid on Lichess (I realize the ratings are not the most accurate, but it is my only point of reference). I'm wondering if there would be any good OTB tournaments that I could participate in at this level, and if there are specific websites that would be the best to find good local tournaments.

# Answer
There still aren't as many OTB tournaments as there were in 2019, but they're starting to come back. You can find USCF rated tournaments at this link. Just make sure to set the "Online" option to "No" if you only want OTB tournaments, and then you can search by date range and either state or proximity. Bear in mind that that for these tournaments you'll need to pay for a USCF membership on top of the entry fee, if you don't already have one.

I'd also suggest asking at a local club about other tournaments in your area which may not be USCF rated. There may not be a centralized place where these are listed; they may rely on word of mouth.

You don't need any particular rating to participate in most tournaments, but I realize it's no fun to go out there and lose every game. Rest assured that with that sort of online rating it is unlikely that you will do so; your rating is likely to be higher than the average player's.
> 15 votes

# Answer
Go ahead! A lichess rapid rating around 2000 is quite good, there must be a lot of players in national open (or club) tournaments not reaching that rating. But study some theory also ...
> 7 votes

---
Tags: tournament, rating, otb-chess
---


# Question
Title: What is a good strategy for blocking your opponent from checkmating you even though they always win?
I like to play chess against my Dad. He is almost a professional player. He always finds ways to checkmate my king. Every game I try new blocking strategies, but none of them work.

# Answer
There is a tried and tested strategy which works better than all others although it takes some time.

That is quite simply to get your opponent to go over the game with you afterwards and point out to you what your mistakes were and, very important, why those moves were mistakes. You obviously also need to pay attention, learn and remember and not repeat those mistakes.

If you follow this long term strategy you will find that you last longer and longer in your games. Eventually, if you keep this strategy going long enough, you will find that you even manage the occasional draw and maybe one day even the occasional win.
> 36 votes

# Answer
Father-son relationships can be competitive, especially in areas where the father needs to feel strong (hiding a weakness). Maybe your father used to be very good, and feels the need to revive that time, or he is now, and he can't stand defeat?

We don't know your age, but, unfortunately, your father having an unfair advantage of seniority and chess experience, and being your dad, beating you all the time can induce stress that can affect you negatively, possibly in the longer term.

Maybe you could choose some of the following options

* Tell your dad to point your mistakes during a game (not only at the end) "You better not take that pawn because...". This will make you accept (emotionally) that your dad is stronger than you (at chess), and get him to cooperate, instead of fight.
* If you feel some competition with your dad, that goes beyond just chess, (and this is what transpires from your post, if I'm not mistaken), you have to accept it. But understand that this is normal to lose against much stronger players, whoever they might be. If you feel this is hard to bear (because he's dad), rather play with people close to your level, in a club, at school...

All in all, express your emotions, talk with dad...
> 5 votes

# Answer
What elo is your father? Its probably easier to simply attempt to win rather than to try and stall losing. Slight advantages in chess can cascade till one side checkmates. A better way of approaching this might be to rephrase the question as "how do I become X elo at chess?" Where X is your fathers strength.

Then go though the general advice on how to get better at chess for example:

1. Play games on chess.com
2. Do tactics on chesstempo.com
3. Review your games
4. Read/watch introductory "how to get better at chess" videos/articles
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Looking to improve my tactics and possibly develop an opening repertoire at the beginner/intermediate level
I am new to the game and I so far like it. I have watched people on the internet play, tried to copy their moves and have been maintaining an 800 rating on Chess.com and around 1000 on Lichess. I have played around 70 rated games (both sites and 1/2 minute blitz games full of blunders included) at most so the rating may not be accurate. I never read a book nor watched a complete tutorial video of chess. I read on this site that developing tactics and recognizing checkmate patterns would be a decent start instead of worrying about theory; and based on this, I downloaded the following books :

* John Nunn : 1001 deadly checkmates
* John Nunn : Learn Chess Tactics
* The Soviet Chess Primer

And started to play tactics on Lichess. I don't have a type that I play, I try any puzzle that the site gives me.

I was planning to learn and try out different openings, probably with one of the Italian game, the Berlin Defence and the Ruy Lopez. There is no particular reason why I chose these, it's just that the usual 1. e4 openings start that way. The London opening looks a tad common at this level, although too many people just do not like this for its uncreative starting moves. My questions :

1. Have I chosen the right books or do I need to modify the list? I am looking to absolutely dedicate my chess study time to not more than two books at the moment: suggest me which two out of these should I go with, or if there's anything better, what should that be in your opinion.
2. Do I work on my opening repertoire now on one of those I mentioned above? (I think the *"start with 1. e4, develop the minor pieces, control the center, castle"* feels monotonous after a point.) Or read books on middle/end games?
3. I don't think (say) in a 1-hour long tutorial video one is able to memorize all of it in one go especially when one is new to the game. I intend to to cross 1500 on Chess.com and participate in OTB tournaments (not to pursue to a professional career but rather for fun) in the next 6 months. I am in college and I can spend not more than 2 hours a day on an average. Is it too much to ask for? (It absolutely does not mean I will discontinue Chess otherwise, I am just trying to have that as a goal.)
4. Am I going to face absolute rookie opponents on my first OTB? What type of preparation am I going to witness?

# Answer
1. I don't know these books myself, but John Nunn is an excellent author and tactics are an important topic, you can't really go wrong with those.
2. If you want some variation in your training, maybe now's the time to start with endgames. They may look boring (to most) at first glance, but if you dive deeper, you will notice more and more how rich and educative they can be. A "repertoire" on the other hand is not something you need until much later (see 4).
3. Having goals is never bad and yours is not unrealistic!
4. Most opponents below 1500 FIDE Elo (or national equivalent) (warning: not directly comparable to chess.com or lichess ratings) won't know more than the very basic moves of their openings by heart and will never specifically prepare against you (*maybe* if you have already played more than 3-4 games against them). For this reason, working on a "repertoire" that deserves the name doesn't yet make sense. Your opponents won't follow book lines for long anyways (often not even the ones from the introduction chapter! Making most if not all of the later chapters moot).
> 1 votes

# Answer
1. books: Nunn is a very good author. Maybe try something by J. Silman too, see if you like it. There are many books for beginners, you might need to spend time to find the one you like the most (always a good idea to check that the author is at least an IM though).
2. I'd say opening prep is not very critical for you, just yet; most games will probably start with 1. e4 e5 and go in the direction of four knights/italian etc. You do, however, want to at least roughly understand how to play if you opponent stays within his first three ranks and does not compete for the center.
3. Tutorials video are designed to come back to them multiple times to refresh the ideas. If you indeed can spend 2 hours per day it will be very good. It's also better to spend an hour every day rather than spend an entire sunday and forget about chess for the rest of the week.
4. most of your games will be decided in "simple" tactics (blunder pieces etc). Make sure you know how to convert material advantage (e.g. exchange pieces, make a passed pawn, push it, promote it, checkmate with the queen).

Good luck.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, beginner, reference-request
---


title: Another mobility puzzle

text:
# Question
Title: Another mobility puzzle
This is the "opposite" of A mobility puzzle \- I held it back because it could have interfered with Schwalbe 2021 construction challenge.

Thus: Put a *maximal* number m of pieces on the board such that the position is legal, no obviously promoted pieces occur (I will be gracious with retro-forced promotions) and each piece has exactly n legal moves (obviously 0\<=n\<=8).

Remarks:

* n=0: solution is well known, m=30 is possible.
* n=1,2: My m=32 can't be beat, try to find it.
* n=3: This is the "king discipline". Even Rewan will get a headache! (And since I can only accept one answer, I'll prefer to accept that record.)
* n=4: Note you can't just pile up 16 promotable pawns on both-)sides as the position would be illegal!
* n=5,6,7: My m=16 can't be beat (pawns can't occur), try to find it.
* n=8: This is the other "king discipline". Promotable pawns with a capture object can occur!
* n\>8 is impossible - the kings.

Thus I suggest that you try m=3,4,8 first (I will not reveal my m there).

EDIT: Here is an update.

5

```
[FEN "4rq2/rk2Nn2/6NQ/6nR/8/B7/b5K1/1Bb3R1 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

6

```
[FEN "8/3KNN2/6n1/6n1/RBb3k1/1r1B4/q1Rb4/1Q1r4 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

7

```
[FEN "1r5q/7r/1k3N1b/5N1B/b1n5/B1n3K1/R7/Q5R1 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
Sorry Hauke, but I can't get a headache this time. I've already commissioned n=1 n=2, an n=3 over on the Puzzling Stack Exchange. However, here the positions from the accepted answers for reference. The way I see it, I technically am the one the who got the gears rolling that produced them. Thus, I "found" them in my archives. Either way, I've beat you to the punch once more, you old bird (Hauke=Hawk, *giggles*)!

---

```
 [Title "n=1 by  @loopy walt, 32 piecews"]
 [FEN "1nrqkbnr/3bp3/1pp3pp/p3Pp2/2Pp3P/PP3PP1/3PB3/RNBQKRN1 w Qk - 0 1"]

```

---

```
[Title "n=2 by  @loopy walt, 32 pieces"]
[FEN "rq1nnk1r/1pp2pp1/7b/p2pp2p/1PP2PP1/1BB5/PN1PP1NP/1R1QKb1R w K - 0 1"]

```

---

```
 [Title "n=3 by  @loopy walt, 30 pieces"]
 [FEN "1qr1k2B/pb1p1p1p/1RP3P1/2p1p1n1/1N1P1P2/1p3pr1/P1P1P1BP/b2K1RQ1 w - - 0 1"]

```

---

For n=4, you actually **can** pile up 16 promotable pawns on both sides in a legal position. See the proof here: What is the maximum number of passed pawns in a position?

```
 [Title "n=4 by  me, 24 pieces"]
 [FEN "8/PPPPPPPP/BRK4n/8/8/N4krb/pppppppp/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Regarding n=8, knight and bishops can't be on the last rank. This leaves the wide ranged, and therefore difficult to contains, queens and rooks to be fresh meat for the pawns. It also restricts the number of useable pawns. So far, the knights have also proven too tricky for me.

```
 [Title "n=8 by  me, 10 pieces"]
 [FEN "r7/1P6/r2k4/1b6/6B1/4K2R/6p1/7R w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
An improvement for n=4, building on Rewan Demontay's answer:

```
 [Title "n=4, 26 pieces"]
 [FEN "2Rnr3/PP1PP1PP/RKQ3rk/7B/5n2/6Bb/pp1pp1p1/3NN2q w - - 0 1"]

```

The trick is to replace some pawns by knights or rooks to keep the position legal with less necessary captures.

---

This version has more pieces and less pawns, so I think building a proof game will be easier. However adding a wPb7 would probably make it illegal :

```
 [Title "n=4, 26 pieces"]
 [FEN "2Rnr3/P2PP1PP/RKQ3rk/8/1N3n1b/6Bb/pp1pp1p1/3BN2q w - - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: problems, puzzles, records
---


title: Who is actually winning here?

text:
# Question
Title: Who is actually winning here?
I came across this interesting position:

```
[Title "Black to move (with full castling rights)"]
[FEN "r2qkb1r/pp1nn1p1/7p/5N2/3p4/2P2N2/PP2QPPP/R1B3K1 b kq - 0 1"]

```

On first glance, it seems like Black ought to have a little bit of advantage, as White is down a rook for a pawn. But due to the significant danger for Black (under a pin and unable to castle safely), it is quite unclear, and even after looking at a couple of lines using Lichess analysis I am unable to decide which side is better off. Is there any broad-brushed strategy for either side that would gradually but decisively achieve victory?

Based on Stockfish evaluation, it seems that both sides can maintain a dead draw for 10+ moves, but I think the outcome under perfect play is *unlikely* to be a draw. So who is most likely winning here?

# Answer
> Is there any broad-brushed strategy for either side that would gradually but decisively achieve victory?

Sounds like what you are really asking here is "Can black survive long enough, without giving back too much material, to take advantage of the extra material to win." That's because white's winning strategy would have to be to checkmate black quickly and that's not a gradual process and in any case, as you say, the engines evaluate the position as close to equal out to move 10.

If there were such a strategy for black it would be something like:

1. Avoid checkmate
2. Avoid giving back too much material
3. Get the queens off

1 is achievable, 2 is achievable for a while but white can easily sidestep 3.

Although a rook for a pawn up, black is facing an immediate checkmate threat, Nd6#, plus Qe6 looks really nasty, plus the white squares around the black king are very weak.

The most obvious move, Qb6, protects against both the checkmate and Qe6 but is one of many second favourites of the engine. As some of the comments point out, Nb6 is the first choice of the silicon-based players.

This carbon-based player likes the look of Nc5 which also protects against both the mate and Qe6 and aims to return some material to get to a more comfortable, albeit more materially balanced position, with a sequence like 1...Nc5 2. cxd4 Qd7 3. Nxe7 Bxe7 4. dxc5. Then black can choose between Rd8 threatening mate (albeit easy for white to parry) and O-O.

It could go something like this:

```
[FEN "r2qkb1r/pp1nn1p1/7p/5N2/3p4/2P2N2/PP2QPPP/R1B3K1 b kq - 0 1"]

1...Nc5 2. cxd4 Qd7 3. Nxe7 Bxe7 4. dxc5 Rd8 (4...O-O 5. Qc4+ Kh8 6. Be3 Bf6) 5. Be3 O-O 6. Rc1

```

Of course the engines don't go for any of this cowardly stuff. They prefer, as black, to hang on to the extra material as long as possible, even at the expense of having to make a number of "only moves":

```
[FEN "r2qkb1r/pp1nn1p1/7p/5N2/3p4/2P2N2/PP2QPPP/R1B3K1 b kq - 0 1"]

1...Nb6 2. Bf4 d3 {only move} 3. Qe6 Nc8 {only move unless you want to allow white a draw by repetition} (3...Qd5 4. Nd6+ Kd8 5. Nf7+ Ke8 6.Nd6+) 4. Ne5 Qd5 {only move} 5. Nd6+ Qxd6 {only move} 6. Qf7+ Kd8 7. Rd1 Qf6 8. Rxd3+ Nd6 {only move} 9. Qxf6 gxf6 10. Nf7+ Kd7 11. Nxh8 Nec8

```

At the end of the day the computer has given back material, black is up a piece for two pawns, but in return white has allowed the exchange of queens. White's more active pieces means that the evaluation in black's favour is less than 0.5.

> I think the outcome under perfect play is unlikely to be a draw. So who is most likely winning here?

I think the outcome in such a double-edged position with *human play* is unlikely to be a draw. More scope for mistakes means humans are more likely to make them and lose, but the computer suggests that with perfect play it *is* a draw.
> 3 votes

# Answer
This is a quite complicated position. It's not about "following a strategy" but rather about concrete calculation of different lines that could arise. Any "tiny" mistake by either side can lead to a huge change in evaluation (for example, White is threatening checkmate right now).

Most players would prefer to have White here, since playing with the initiative is often easier than finding defensive moves. For instance, after Black defends d6 with ...Nf6 or ...Nb6, White could follow with Bf4, insisting on Nd6+ and perhaps later Re1 to add pressure on the pinned knight. Qe6 is an option too with many chances for a perpetual (see for instance **1...Nf6 2.Qe6 Qd5 3.Nd6+**). Finding natural moves for Black is not easy at all though.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, tactics, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: What is the shortest 1:16 mutual stalemate with the White king at home?
In this ancient r/chess thread, several users explored the shortest possible 1:16 mutual stalemate. StoofBuzze provided a record in 42.5 moves. However, what is the shortest such game in which the White king is at home, aka e1, in the final position? Below is my work.

```
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 5/8/2021, Non-Unique Proof Game In 48.0 Moves"]
[FEN ""]

1. a4 b5 2. b3 e5 3. Ra2 Qg5 4. d3 Qxc1 5. Nh3 Nc6 6. Ng1 Nd4 7. g3 Nf6 8. Bg2 Ne4 9. c4 Nc2+ 10. Kf1 Na1 11. Ke1 Nd2 12. Bf1 Nxb1 13. Bg2 d5 14. e4 Bg4 15. Bf1 Bxd1 16. Re2 bxa4 17. Re3 Ba3 18. Rf3 Bb2 19. g4 Kd7 20. Re3 Kc6 21. Rf3 Kc5 22. Re3 Kb4 23. Rf3 Ka3 24. Re3 Ka2 25. b4 c5 26. Rg3 cxb4 27. d4 exd4 28. Rc3 f5 29. f4 fxe4 30. Bg2 g5 31. Bf1 gxf4 32. Bg2 h5 33. Bf1 hxg4 34. Rc2 Rxh2 35. Bd3 Rxc2 36. Bf1 Rh8 37. Bd3 Rhh2 38. Bf1 Rhd2 39. Nf3 gxf3 40. Be2 fxe2 41. Rh3 a5 42. Re3 a3 43. Rf3 a4 44. Rh3 b3 45. Rg3 dxc4 46. Rh3 c3 47. Rg3 d3 48. Re3 fxe3

```

# Answer
Nice question. Here's a slight variant of your construction that saves two moves.

```
[Title "Proof Game In 46.0 Moves"]
[FEN ""]

1. a3 Nc6 2. Ra2 Na5 3. Ra1 Nb3 4. Ra2 Na1 5. Nh3 Nf6 6. Ng5 Nd5 7. Nc3 e5 8. Nb5 Nc3 9. Nd4 Nb1 10. Nf5 d5 11. Nh3 Qg5 12. d4 Qxc1 13. Nf4 c5 14. Nh5 cxd4 15. Rg1 Kd7 16. Rh1 Kc6 17. Rg1 Kb5 18. Rh1 Ka4 19. Nh4 Bg4 20. Rg1 Rc8 21. Rh1 Rxc2 22. Rg1 Kb3 23. e4 Kxa2 24. b3 a5 25. Rh1 a4 26. Rg1 axb3 27. a4 b5 28. a5 Ba3 29. Nf5 Bb2 30. Nd6 b4 31. Nb5 f5 32. Na3 bxa3 33. a6 fxe4 34. a7 Bxd1 35. a8=Q g5 36. Nf4 gxf4 37. Bc4 dxc4 38. Qa7 d3 39. Qe3 fxe3 40. f3 h5 41. g4 hxg4 42. Rg2 Rxh2 43. Rg3 Rhd2 44. Rg2 c3 45. Rf2 gxf3 46. Re2 fxe2

```
> 5 votes

---
Tags: problems, records, stalemate
---