# Question
Title: Is it allowed to be an arbiter and have your kid playing in the same FIDE rated tournament?
Recently, I participated in a FIDE-rated tournament where the (only) arbiter had their son playing in it. I find that very odd. Is it allowed? What if the arbiter favors their kid? What should be done?

# Answer
The FIDE arbiters' Commission disapproves very strongly of arbiters playing in the same competition that they are arbiting in but does not ban it.

My own federation told me when I was still qualifying as an arbiter that I may not play in any tournament at the same time that I am arbiting a FIDE rated event. So, for instance if there was a FIDE rated tournament taking place alongside a national rated tournament then I may not play in the national rated tournament and arbit in the FIDE rated one. I am allowed to do the reverse.

The ECF, the federation running chess where I live now, *does* allow playing and arbiting in the same tournament whether FIDE rated or not.

From what I have written it should be clear that there is no problem whatsoever with every member of the chief arbiter's extended family playing in the same tournament that he or she is arbiting. Arbiters are required to be impartial and this applies whether it is with regard to family members, friends, lovers, bosses, work colleagues, etc., etc.

> What should be done?

The best advice I can give is to try not to be too paranoid. It will affect your chess playing and destroy your enjoyment of the game.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: rules, tournament
---


# Question
Title: What's the most prestigious chess competition broadcasted on TV?
I want to experience the best chess competition is where the most experienced players around the globe participate.

Is there such a contest? Or is it too boring to watch chess tournament because it takes too long to finish? Which TV station broadcasts the most supreme chess contests?

Lastly, is a chess game as fascinating as El Clásico (a soccer game between FC Barçelona and Real Madrid)

# Answer
> 8 votes
**Update to add a list of top regular events, per request:** These are some of the annual tournaments that are regularly made up largely of elite players (say, from the top 10 in the world).

* Dortmund
* London Chess Classic
* Pearl Spring Chess Tournament (Nanjing, China)
* Tal Memorial (Moscow)
* Tata Steel Chess Tournament (Wijk aan Zee, Netherlands)

Some events like this which have recently struggled to exist, but which might come back, include Linares and the Bazna Kings tournament. And the Chess Olympiad is a biennial international team competition (sort of the World Cup of chess).

---

I can't speak to the situation globally, but in my country (USA) there certainly isn't chess programming to be found on television. (I do recall the sports channel ESPN experimenting with broadcasts of elite blitz chess in the late 1990s, including very enthusiastic commentary by Maurice Ashley, but the experiment was short-lived. And way back during the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match, PBS covered it in a way.) Here at least, the problem is simply that the chess playing audience is way too small. Because of that, televised chess would indeed be boring to most of the population, but I don't think that the issue is with chess being *inherently* too boring to watch. That is, while people who already have no use for chess would find it boring, I think chess fans very often do enjoy watching live coverage of events. (So in this regard chess viewing is no different from other sports or forms of entertainment.)

This is borne out when one looks beyond television, as there is plenty of live coverage of top chess events on the internet. Some that have had particularly well-executed coverage of late:

---

Perhaps worth mentioning here: from 1976 to 1982, BBC2 in the UK ran a chess show called The Master Game, in which top players of the day would compete in elimination tournaments, and voice-overs were edited in later, so as to appear to give the players' thought processes as they occurred during the game. (For example, here's an episode featuring a game between Walter Browne and John Nunn. Many more of these have been uploaded to YouTube.) I for one would love to see another show done in this manner.

The most recent Botvinnik Memorial rapid tournament (involving Anand, Kramnik, Aronian, Carlsen) tried to do something like this with its live stream. They actually paused the games halfway through each round, and got the players to give their thoughts on how the games were going. That didn't seem to work as well, in my opinion, as it just seemed like an awkward pause in the action, but it was a nice idea.

# Answer
> 8 votes
I don't think there has been any televised chess tournaments in the English speaking world since the 90s with the Short-Kasparov matches.

From the 1970s through the 1980s there was a show on BBC2 called the Master Game. It seems that some of the episodes have been put on YouTube. See this article as well.

I really think that the major problem with televised chess tournaments in the decade that we live in right now is 3 fold:

1. There is not enough money in it to attract any but a niche network.
2. Serious chess coverage has migrated to the Internet and sites like PlayChess.com (from ChessBase), ICC, and Chess.com. Streaming video from these sites can reach a much wider audience than live broadcasts on BBC or ESPN.
3. The format is not very good for modern TV. The average viewer wants action. It's a sad comment on our society, but we live in the age of reality TV, not in an age where chess is actually appreciated.

# Answer
> 0 votes
At chess.com most grandmasters (tagged GM) can be found, casually playing all day; you can watch them train. Whenever there's a significant tourney, you'll be able to find it broadcast there, with professional commentary.

On Twitch and YouTube there's a lot of it as well; just search “chess” and enjoy; there are plenty of masters, analysts, and teachers there to watch all day. Currently, the best players are the World Champion Magnus Carlsen (Norway) and the runner-up Fabiano Caruana (USA). Hikaru Nakamura (USA) is also a strong contender, with millions of fans worldwide. Anything between these guys is El Clásico.

I'd recommend you to find a chess club in your area (easy to locate nowadays) so that you'll be aware of the happening, especially those most relevant for your region.

---
Tags: world-championship
---


# Question
Title: How to reach an open position in the 4 Knights Game without exchanging too much material?
I believe that 4 knights opening is the most popular opening, especially among average players. I play it a lot, that's why I want to analyse it. I'm an average player, so I hope you can help me.

Some people like to play 4 knights game like this

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5

```

But I don't like to exchange my bishop for a knight, early on, so I play something like

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.Be2 Be7 6.O-O O-O

```

This is just an example where both player are trying to control the center, develop their minor pieces and castle. So you can think of any position, since most of the 4 knights game positions will most probably look a lot like that.

Both sides castled, now, how to continue without exchanging too much material? I'm just an average player, what I would do is

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.Be2 Be7 6.O-O O-O 7.d4 exd4 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4

```

That's what I would do but I don't like this position, black is going to chase my queen, which happened to me a lot of times, and I'll end up moving the queen, losing space tempo, space and advantage of being one move ahead. If black played `c5` I'll have to bring back my queen, if `Qc4` then `Be6`. Materials are equal, black gaining tempo while developing his pieces. And both sides lost too much material to open the position.

I don't see anyway to continue the game if white didn't play `d4`. And in many games you'll end up swapping queens too early in the game if the `d file` was open.

So is it possible to play the 4 knights opening without trading too much material in order to open the position? (I'm asking about black and white.)

# Answer
> 11 votes
There isn't really anything wrong with what you show as an example in my opinion. White is in the superior position. Just because the queen is attacked once does not mean that you are going to lose a tempo. If Black moves `c5` to attack your queen on `d4` then that is a blunder in my opinion, and can be countered with `qd3`. In this position stockfish gives White a `+0.64` advantage with 23 moves of depth. So I would say that you are on the right track. Continue to dominate that center, and then look towards exploiting Black's weak pawn on `d6` by getting your `f` rook involved and developing your other bishop. Game on!

# Answer
> 6 votes
You don't have to exchange the bishop for the knight even if you use the 4.Bb5. This position is very similar to the Ruy Lopez and you could easily reach the same position from the Ruy Lopez. One variation of the Ruy Lopez has the bishop back off to a4 if the a-pawn advances to threaten it.

You also have the option of Bc4 before d3, which keeps your bad bishop active and outside the pawn chain, if you don't want to move Bb5 at all. Also the d3 move seems too passive. d4 is more aggressive and would lead to an open position the way you want much more easily. It also doesn't hem in the white bishop even if you don't move the bishop first.

# Answer
> 6 votes
On move 4, `d3` seems a little passive and a loss of a move if you are going to move the d-pawn to d4 anyway. Instead of imitating after 4. d3, black is better off playing d5 taking control of the centre and having more active play. If you want a more open position, play 4. d4, which transposes to variations of the Scotch.

# Answer
> 0 votes
4.d3 is extremely passive and allows black at least equality after 4...d5. There's no reason to play d3 there since the e4 pawn is already defended. You're essentially wasting a move to block your own bishop.

You basically have four decent 4th moves.

4. Bb5 is likely the strongest move. It overlaps with the Ruy Lopez which is considered one of the best openings in chess for white (although c3 is more typical than Nc3 in the Ruy). The downside it that it requires a deep understanding of positional play which is likely outside the understanding of most class players.
5. g3 is the Glek system. This is probably more what you're looking for. It is somewhat passive but far less than than 4.d3. It's fairly respectable scoring 55.5% in the Lichess database (main line Ruy scores 55.0%) and doesn't have that much theory to learn. If you want something in the 4N that gives you good winning chances while avoiding early exchanges and without memorizing a lot of theory, this is it.
6. Bc4 is the Italian 4 knights. It's probably playable but the very simple 4...Nxe4 is going to leave white in a difficult position to play that is highly tactical
7. Be2 is also very passive but the Bishop serves a defensive function and white retains the option of playing d4 in one move. This is a little better than 4.d3

Two other options: 4: Nxe5 is a very strong gambit. Black can equalize but below master level it is very hard for black to play. 4. d4 is a Scotch-like opening but the main problem is there isn't really an an advantage to playing Nc3 before d4. You rule out some of white's best lines but don't gain anything in the process.

---
Tags: opening, learning, strategy, analysis, four-knights
---


# Question
Title: Best reply against the Italian Game after 3...h6 4. d4?
After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 h6 4. d4:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 h6 4. d4

```

What is the best answer to avoid pile up of opponent pieces in the center as black? Especially after Nc3 and 0-0, this position sometimes gets awkward as it's difficult for the black queen to find a suitable square that both defends the king and attacks the opponent.

# Answer
> 8 votes
*3...h6 is not a mistake, but it's certainly not the best move in the position.*

In the opening, one of your goals is to develop your pieces, and ...h6 doesn't do this. The only point of ...h6 seems to be to avoid the line 3...Nf6 4.Ng5, but this line is not dangerous to black at all. Play can continue 4...d5 5.exd5 Na5, and black will have good compensation for his pawn in this well known line.

The reason you may experience difficulties as black after 3...h6 is because you don't achieve any activity with h6, and you let white take control over the center with 4.d4. This is a Scotch Game / Scotch Gambit where white has the useful move Bc4, while black has the much less useful h6.

Thus, you should not play 3...h6 as black, but instead either 3...Nf6 or 3...Bc5 as black, which take control of the center and activate your pieces. These openings, the 2 knights (Nf6) and Giucco (Bc5) are very solid openings for black.

Finally, even though a GM used to experiment with this line, it doesn't mean you should play it. Hikaru has played an early 3.Qh5 before in open games (1.e4 e5), but that doesn't make the move good. If black responds properly, white will have no chance to secure an opening advantage. While Hikaru can outplay many GMs even in worse positions, for non-master players, there's no reason to play a sub-optimal opening that has no surprise value (unlike 1.b4 or 1.g4, which can catch opponents off-guard). Thus, one of 3...Bc5 or 3...Nf6 is what you should do.

\*If you are set on playing 3...h6, then you will have to accept a slightly worse position as black. He has wasted time with h6, and gives white an opening edge. An awkward queen might be one of these problems.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I've done a lot of analysis on this line. At one time I almost sat down and wrote out a complete refutation for the entire line with the intent of publishing it online. I got stuck on the line 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 h6 4. d4 exd4 5. c3 dxc3 6. Nxc3 Bb4 7. O-O Bxc3 8. bxc3 Nge7 though. In my opinion this is black's only chance at equality. I think white is still better but the advantage is small and it's impossible to prove an advantage through analysis. Still I've won a ton of games with 9. Nh4. White has other options at move 9 and the advantage of the two bishops combined with a lead in development so proving equality with black is probably equally impossible.

---
Tags: learning, 1.e4, italian-game
---


# Question
Title: Is the Spanish opening better than the Italian opening (for white)?
I am currently playing the Italian opening with the white pieces.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4

```

I have been training with a higher rating player, who suggests to switch to the Spanish opening(Ruy Lopez).

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5

```

I would like to ask, is the Spanish **so much better** than the Italian that it makes it worth changing? Furthermore, in the Spanish opening, does black have sharp variations that could be used against white?

# Answer
Let us start with the *Italian game*.

Although it was long long ago since I was playing this opening, there are good reasons why it is not played anymore. The main reason it is not popular any more is the failure of the *Moeller attack*:

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.O-O Bxc3 9.d5 Bf6 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Rxe4 d6 12.Bg5 Bxg5 13.Nxg5 h6 ( 13...O-O 14.Nxh7!= ) 14.Qe2 hxg5 15.Re1 Be6 16.dxe6 f6 17.Re3 c6

```

In the old days people played the *Moeller attack* and in the beginning things were good for White --- sacrifice a pawn and get strong initiative --- but Black found a way to defend the attack --- see the lines above --- and the main line was destroyed. White tried with quiet `d3` and to prepare `d4` as in the *Spanish game ( Ruy Lopez )* but had no success.

People tried with the *Scotch Gambit* --- mainly the *Max Lange Attack* --- but Black did not need much time to find antidote-that line failed White too so it was abandoned.

Tthe same happened with the *Traxler attack* and it was abandoned too.

The *Evans Gambit* had the same faith-I think *Lasker* was the one who proved that Black can at certain point return the pawn and obtain better chances due to better pawn structure.

Nowadays, people seek various ways to improve these old lines but nothing tangible was found-either Black can **sidestep** the improvements or they give equal play.

Now the good stuff --- the *Ruy Lopez*! After the moves:

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5

```

we reach the *tabia*. We notice that there is **no symmetry** as in the *Italian Game*. Moreover, an important thing with the *Ruy Lopez* is that White exerts **maximum** possible pressure on the center. That is the reason why it is better than *Italian game*, where center control is divided **equally**.

Because Black is under pressure he **needs to make concessions**, usually via `a6` and then `b5` to chase away the bishop-which leaves him with weak `c` pawn. **Because of advantage in the center and healthier pawn structure White has a long initiative and Black needs to play carefully to free himself.** This usually manifests in White having a king side attack, or slight but long lasting positional pressure.

Furthermore, in the *Spanish game*, White **can create center formation he likes** thanks to his **flexible** `d4+e4` pawn phalanx, something he **can not do** in the *Italian game*. This means that White can play with **fixed center ( pawn `e4` vs `e5` ) , semi open center ( pawn `e4` vs `d6` ) or closed one ( `e4+d5` pawns vs `d6+e5` )** and that gives him opportunity to try various **transpositional tricks** to outsmart Black-something that *Italian game* can not give you since the center is **fixed and symmetric.**

To summarize:

The *Ruy Lopez* gives you a slight advantage in the center, slight initiative, great flexibility in steering the game, healthier pawn structure and great transpositional resources to outsmart your opponent.

If you wish to improve as a player you should play this opening for a while, so you can learn how to play with different center formations. It is good for practising how to "cash in" the king side attack.

> Futhermore, in the Spanish does black have sharper continuations that he can throw against white?

Yes he does --- the variation you seek is the *Marshall attack*. It is very dangerous, and, as it is based on positional grounds, i doubt that a refutation of this gambit can be found. I think the current theoretical standing is *unclear*. Be warned, you must know theory very well to play against this line.

If you have further questions leave a comment and I will respond.

Sorry for incoherent answer, I wrote thoughts as they came to me. I could write a small book on this topic-there is so much to say about this-so if you need further information feel free to ask.

**EDITED ON OPs REQUEST:**

> I am trying to understand if it is a lot better or only slightly better.

It is **way better** than *Italian game.*

Black defends **statically** in *Ruy Lopez*, there are **no counter-attacks** ( except the *Marshall attack* of course ) so he needs to suffer a little in order to get counter-play.

Since you have an **ideal center** ---`d4+e4` pawn formation --- you have a slight space advantage. You also decide what type of game shall be played --- open or closed --- depending on your decision to close or open the center.

You get a king-side attack, and Black **needs to defend himself** --- his counter-play on the queen-side is not sufficient. Be warned --- the *Ruy Lopez* is **highly complicated** to play for both sides but that is the reason people play it with both colors --- because **both sides must play accurately.**

The reason I would not recommend it for Black is that Black lacks active counter-play, so he needs to defend for a long time, before he generates chances, and that is just too much for me.

Generally speaking, White has easier play in the *Ruy Lopez*. He "calls all the shots" most of the time, and Black needs to **repel White's threats first**, and only then try to generate counter-play.

This is one of the main reasons why Black often answers to `1.e4` with the *Sicilian* or the *French defense*.

This was my opinion, supported by my current knowledge and experience in the *Ruy Lopez* and *Italian game*.

I must say that I have stopped playing `1.e4` long ago and that many things might have changed today but to test my claims it would be best to obtain good repertoire books on *Ruy Lopez* ( although I **strongly** believe that conclusions from those book will **mainly support** my conclusions ).

Hopefully this answer sheds some light.

Best regards.
> 5 votes

# Answer
The Spanish (Ruy Lopez) is OBJECTIVELY better which means if you play most of your games against GMs and 3000+ rated engines it should be your main choice as a 1.e4 player.

However, for most most normal people the Italian is going to give better results.

I wouldn't recommend the main lines Ruys for anyone unless they have aspirations of reaching IM level or higher. And realistically if you're over 12 and asking this question thinking you can become an IM your aspirations are probably unrealistic. There is a ton of theory in the Ruy and the positional play can be extremely subtle. Most people would be better off spending their time studying tactics.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, ruy-lopez, italian-game
---


# Question
Title: Is chess a game of skill or chance? To what extent?
I want to know whether chess is a game of skill or game of chance, and how much is the degree of skill or chance in terms of percentage.

Edit (21 Feb 2014):

Please make sure that your answer includes credible references. To be sure that chess is a game of skill (or chance?).

# Answer
If we remove the component of flawed, human players from the equation and consider just the game of chess itself as it is spelled out by the rules, then chess is purely a game of skill with no room for chance. That is, it is in principle possible for there to be a perfect chess player that plays optimally against every possible move sequence by an opponent, and that perfect player would never falter due to chance or luck. Such perfect players already exist at the level of chess positions with only a handful of pieces: endgame tablebases consist of all the information necessary for perfect play in those positions, and if you play from such a position against an opponent with access to those tablebases, chance can play no role in stopping them from getting their deserved result.

However, the problem of computing a tablebase for the starting position of chess, with its 32 pieces, is far, far from tractable. So while optimal play does exist for all positions in chess, nobody knows for sure what optimal play is for the vast, vast majority of positions. Looked at in that light, when two humans (or even strong chess engines) play a game against one another, something that can reasonably be viewed as chance (for one side at least) can definitely play a role, but for what I have in mind at least, the root cause of any outcome is still skill (or its temporary absence).

Here's an example of what I mean. In the recent Zurich Chess Challenge, Nakamura was playing a fine game against Carlsen, to the point where he had an overwhelming, winning advantage. At that point, it could safely be said that Carlsen "deserved" to lose.

```
[fen "4r1k1/1p3pPp/6q1/2pPpNP1/p1n1P3/P6Q/7R/K7 w KQkq - 0 1"]
[White "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Event "Zurich Chess Challenge"]
[Result "0-1"]

1.d6? (1.Qf1!)

```

But Nakamura made a crucial mistake that let Carlsen off the hook, later followed by further poor play that even allowed Carlsen to win. If someone were to say, "Carlsen was *lucky* to win that day," I'd say there's truth to that. (Carlsen certainly deserves credit for defending in such a way that Nakamura could still go wrong, but even so, he was fortunate that Nakamura erred as he did.) But the luck from Carlsen's side originated from nothing more than a momentary lack of skill on Nakamura's part. Finding the right move was entirely within Nakamura's power, but he wasn't quite skillful enough to find it in that moment.

As in most human endeavors, there is some element of chance in the competitive results of chess games. But that luck for one side generally comes in the form of what kind of lack of skill one's opponent shows (and when).
> 17 votes

# Answer
By the commonly accepted definition of "game of skill", chess is 100% a game of skill. It has no random element at all and both players have full information about the game state at all times. Players do say things like "I was lucky that my opponent blundered", but that's not what is generally meant when people talk about "games of chance".
> 9 votes

# Answer
White always starts with a slight advantage by having the first move. So if your colour is decided by flipping a coin or whatever, then that's an element of chance!

But it has been accepted that the game itself is 100% skill.
> 3 votes

# Answer
As a game of chess progresses from one of *incomprehensibly* vast complexity (with a great many useful moves open to many pieces) to manageable complexity (with fewer useful moves), play transitions from (hopefully) skillful (conscious or subconscious/intuitive) applications of

1. heuristics, probabilities, and targeted but incomplete analysis (often small differential analysis from remembered/studied games), to
2. *exhaustive* analysis of the *relevant* paths the game may still take (again, often differential analysis from reference games).

The players themselves - and human observers - may not be able to reliably identify this transition, as they'll be prone to feel like they're in stage 2 a little early - while there are still one or more potential plays that could upset their plans. And a careless move may transition a player back to stage 1.

There's definitely skill involved in *both* stages: in as much as skill is "the ability to do something well; expertise" (OED) - and many reasonable criteria for "doing \[chess\] well" are possible, such as say:

* one's ability to find "better" or avoid subtly "worse" moves, whether in stage "1" or "2" above, and where
* "better" and "worse" are evaluated by the impact those moves have on the outcomes of games they and/or other players have after those moves, all compared to others in the chess-playing community.

(I phrase it in terms of individual moves and not "wins"/"loses averted" because in any activity someone may have skill but not consistency; they may not be a great competitor e.g. if they're feeble of concentration, flustered by pressure, unable or even uninterested in manifesting their ability consistently in competitive settings; they might *just* like analysing complex end games for example, but be very good at it...).

In stage 1, there's *also* an element of luck: there's at least the potential for:

* some reasonable-seeming move to turn out poorly (which would be unusual and therefore reasonably deemed "unlucky" if the heuristics and partial reasoning were overwhelmingly sound and skillfully applied - i.e. of a high standard compared to the chess community overall), or
* a great opportunity that wasn't deliberately set up to become available, or
* a relatively careless move to have consequences that weren't foreseen, which might work out very well or very poorly.

But, if one player has a lot more skill than the other player, the frequency and severity of *significantly* "unlucky" moves they might make, or "lucky" moves their opponent might make that they hadn't foreseen and protected against, decreases, until it becomes astronomically unlikely for enough consecutive "(un)lucky events" to have more bearing on the outcome of the game than the skill differential does.

On the other hand, the closer the skill level the more likely that "luck" will be the deciding factor. Here, "luck" might be occasioned by conscious awareness that a choice between moves is being made arbitrarily, or it could be an intuition/hunch to choose between moves that in this case isn't actually usefully informed by any experience or subconscious analysis. There's even a degree of luck in whether a player making an arbitrary choice between what might in some absolute sense be equally good moves happens to choose a move leading to a situation their opponent is more or less skillful at handling (e.g. because their experience and study is more relevant to one position than another).

You could compare this tide-of-skill versus spontaneous-fluke factor to say tennis: a lucky outcome could see me win a point against Roger Federer - perhaps by playing a very low percentage but skillful shot that happens to work out that one time, or even by having a shot hit the net-cord and drop over, come off my racquet frame at an unlikely but advantageous angle, or bounce strangely for Roger. But, the chance I'd win an entire game is maybe 0.1% (?), a set would be like winning lotto twice in a row, and a match - well, the universe might end first. (Sane caveats re Roger being mentally/physically fine etc..)

The more a game requires a great many moves to shape and turn the outcome, and the lower the chance for a fluke beyond either players' control, the more predictable the outcomes are, and the more the skill differential ensures the outcome, even if that skill is probabilistic and not deterministic. Skill is a huge factor in chess, but skill is not a constant for a player - they may be more skillful at handling play from certain positions than others (perhaps they just read a book on a relevant tactic), and occasionally a player of lower average skill might prevail based on some particularly relevant but limited skill (and be deemed lucky that play led to a situation where they could apply it). In close matches, and perhaps in beginner's matches where more of the movements are made arbitrarily without even a guiding strategy or heuristic used, luck starts to play a significant role.

I think it's interesting to compare this to baseball, I read a book about it years ago that explained how some Wall Street quant types crunched the maths and found that the worst team in the top league had something like half the chance of being the champions that the best team had... i.e. surprisingly little impact on odds came from achievable differences in skill (given the top team had vastly more budget to hire players considered "stars"). For example, while the percentage of swings that made contact varied with batter, the out/1st-base/2nd-base/3rd-base/home outcomes were in similar proportions: you might observe that it took skill to hit the ball more often, but doing so was so difficult and the angle of contact so uncontrollable that what happened when you did basically came down to luck. Overall, luck could easily swing a game.

Separately, and this may be controversial and I'm not claiming it's true - just reasoning about the implications if it happens to be true: I saw a study report that when chess grandmasters played good club players, starting at random board positions that would not occur during actual games: the grandmasters lost their main advantage as they didn't have a huge wealth of applicable reference games with which to compare; reduced to actual logical reasoning without any particular advantage - they only had a smidge more than 50/50 chance of a win. Does that mean chess is less about skill than my above assertions imply? Is a vast memory of games itself a skill? I'd say so - it clearly allows you to "do well" in non-random games, and that's all the OED requires. Further, consider say a language translator - we'd consider the size of their vocabulary to be an aspect of their skill level.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I would submit that there is an element of luck in chess. For eg., imagine a game between two players of roughly equal ability. Suppose the position becomes a very open tactical position with possibilities for both sides. In such a situation a lot of tactics are possible. As human beings, we may not be able to calculate all the variations in such a position. So in such a situation, we would normally choose a particular tactic based on gut feeling. It may well turn out that the tactic chosen is the best one which may result in a winning advantage. However, given the open nature of the position, it may also turn out that the tactic chosen is not a great one and that the opponent finds a good refutation for that particular tactic. So there appears to be an element of luck in deciding which tactic to choose in a position which offers many possibilities.
> 1 votes

# Answer
As chess isn't completly solved, nobody can guarantee that `1.a4` doesn't force a win. However people don't play perfectly (there is room for error), so people will try to use familiar paths to increase his chances of winning. With trial and error they know what is more likely to work and than not.

A cat (by luck) can beat us in chess by slamming his paws (very unlikely, but it remains possible). But why is a GrandMaster more likely to win than a cat?:

> Grand Masters are very **skilled** in picking the moves that have more **chances** of winning.

The question "is chess a game of skill or chance?" can be reworded to "will a cat win more than about 50% of the time in chess or not?". And then the answer is obviously clear, chess is a game of **skill**.

But, is there some luck involved? Yes, a cat can beat us by chance.

To how much extent is chance involved? Here is the hard question, as long as players don't calculate 100% of the possible replays and future moves, they are trying to guess which move will perform best, they can rarely calculate *everything* (only possible in the late game or forced moves by check on the early/mid game). My guess would be that they can't calculate everything 98% of the time, maybe 95% without time limits like correspondence chess.
> 1 votes

# Answer
No, chess requires 100% skill, that's why bookmakers may offer poker games, dominos etc., but absolutely not chess because a good player will constantly win.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Chess is definitely a game of skill and not by chance. One of the greatest chess players ever was the American Robert James "Bobby" Fischer. He acquired the skill by training everyday. He brought a chess board with him wherever he went, even while taking a bath.

It will take you more or less 10 years of real training to become a Grand Master or, at most, a world champion.

I am just barely 2200 FIDE rated but I can say skill is 95% and the rest is where the luck goes.
> 0 votes

# Answer
In theory, chess is 100% game of skill. But since chess is unsolved in practice, is it purely a game of skill?

As of today, if a human/computer analyse to some depth `D` and result in `N` board positions with same evaluation `E`, then the final choice could be purely random.

Therefore until chess is solved, with limited computing power, there is a small component of chance.

**Edit:** Consider 2 computers playing against each other. Lets say, in theory, we know that `1.e4` wins, `1.d4` loses. But the computers have limited power and evaluate both `1.e4` and `1.d4` as same. The computer *randomly* breaks the tie - winning or losing by chance.

**Edit 2:** *How much of it is chance?* IMO the chance component depends on the evaluation depth. For 2 computers that can analyse only upto a depth of 1 - the chance component is high.

**Edit 3:** *Definition of chance:* An external source of randomness which is not known to either playing agents. 2 computers playing each other can produce different result.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Chess is about using your resources in a clever way. As a human body, you have limited resources and planning is needed. A game at classical time controls can take up to 6 hours and being focused for 6 hours is simply impossible. It is hard to eliminate the factor of "human error", "blunder", "being too hasty" and the very important "time trouble" frequently seen on all levels. Yet, it is possible to minimize these problems and thereby improve your results.

I think that chess is all about skill and what some refer to as "chance" or "luck" is the human factor mixed with the simple fact that some positions are a hard nut to crack! For example, you can calculate all the lines correctly, yet have trouble to evaluate the final positions. Alternatively, you may think your calculations are correct yet miss a devastating in-between move.

On average, skill will decide your results. Yet you need skills in several areas, not just e.g. calculation. Thus, some players miss out on one or more areas and start attributing those to "chance" or other factors. For example, if you blunder in your own time trouble, obviously you lack one or more skills. You cannot attribute this to your opponent being lucky. All in all, your skills will maximize your chances of winning, as an individual. The game itself has a certain degree of uncertainty due to several factors. You can choose to call it "chance". You can also choose to call it the "dynamics and uncertainty of a chess game".
> 0 votes

# Answer
I'm pretty sure that by formal definition, chess is a game of 100% skill and 0% luck. Why? There is no "outside element of randomness" that could influence the outcome of a match but cannot be directly controlled by at least one of the players.

In other games, the order of cards and the outcome of the roll of a die cannot be influenced by players... at least not if they play by the rules and do not use some mechanism of cheating :)

The inherent "human factor" is not considered "chance". I.e. if player B makes a mistake that lets player A win, we don't say player A was lucky, we say he played a better game because B made a mistake and A didn't. Of course players *can* introduce an element of chance/randomness by making random moves. If a position is too complex for a player to understand, he could mentally or actually flip a coin to decide which move to make. Or he could pick the best move for completely wrong reasons. This sort of "chance" is part of every game, so if you want, consider it 1-5% chance. More for beginners, less for skilled people because skilled people will not need this type of "guessing".

Another thing to consider: A good player will not lose a single game against a weak player. I don't think the same will be true for poker or other games involving chance so this also shows that it's a game of high skill and little chance...
> 0 votes

# Answer
To say in one line, chess is a game of 100% skill. No chance is involved. This is because both players move the pieces according to their will, without involving some die which eliminates randomness. Secondly, both players can see each other's moves and interpret each other's plans. **So chess is a game of skill**.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I think Chess becomes purely a game of skill only at the Grand Master level where the element of randomness is nil, where strategy, tactics and deep calculations define the game. Chess at Grand Master level is purely Math. But down the hierarchy, skill and chance both become a part of the game.

In fact, if a player has studied his opponent's weaknesses, he might want to take a few chances rather than opting for the time tested standard moves. At amateur levels, players often deviate from the standard course of the game, even just for the fun of it, and willingly take chances.

'Chance' does have the connotation of lack of skill or lack of deep thinking abilities, but skill and deep thinking are not always the components of Chess, especially at amateur level and Chess is widely played at amateur and semi-professional level.

So, considering the popularity of the game and the enjoyment it offers, I would like to conclude by saying that both skill and chance make it what it is.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, online-chess, psychology
---


# Question
Title: Can a player resign after checkmating their opponent?
A friend of mine recently told me that once, he checkmated his opponent and then immediately resigned because he thought his win was unfair. *This happened in a FIDE-rated tournament.*

Searching the FIDE Laws of Chess, I found (emphasis mine):

> 1.2 The objective of each player is to place the opponent's king 'under attack' in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have 'checkmated' the opponent's king and to have won the game. \[...\] The opponent whose king has been checkmated **has lost the game**.

> 5.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent's king. This **immediately ends the game**, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was legal.

Is this possible in any way, for example, move the piece, don't press the clock, and then resign?

# Answer
No, this is not possible.

> for example move the piece, don't press the clock and then resign?

In particular, that loophole is explicitly covered by the rules:

> 6.2.1 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if:
>
> 6.2.1.1 the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 9.6.1 and 9.6.2)

and 5.1.1 is 5.1 in the version of the rules you quoted, so checkmate ends the game before the clock is pressed.

I guess both players could *pretend* the checkmating move wasn't made (or pretend they don't see it's checkmate), but this is considered cheating, and when discovered may result in *both* players losing the game and even being expelled from the tournament.
> 32 votes

# Answer
He could try, but in a real FIDE tournament it would be illegal and not allowed.

In a small local club with amateurs who knows how they would rule if nobody knew the real rules.

If this were not a FIDE tournament their rules might allow some loophole which might permit it. No way to guess what oddball rules soem other group or club might use; so could not answer the question for that case.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Resigning immediately after a checkmate is not possible. HOWEVER, the FIDE rules do allow for a player to do another action, namely withdraw. Withdrawal can be done outside a match and for the most part has the same result, namely that the player is no longer part of the tournament. However, there are penalties involved with this action if the FIDE arbiter judges the reason for the withdrawal to be insufficient, or during a world championship tournament, which can be anything up to and including exclusion from the rest of the championship series for that year.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: rules, checkmate, resigning, loopholes
---


# Question
Title: What should my plans be in a Carlsbad pawn structure?
I often find myself in positions with the Carlsbad pawn structure, and I really struggle to come up with a plan. I am usually the one with the pawn chain pointing toward the queenside, so I assume that I should be focusing my play over there with things like the minority attack. However, I have recently found the minority attack to be unsuccessful for one main reason. The moment I push my b-pawn to b5 in the position shown below, white can respond with b4, instantly shutting down all of my play. Even though b4 creates a hole on c4, I also have a hole on c5 which my opponent can take advantage of with his knight. At this point, I have no idea what to do, and my opponent can play on the kingside with moves like f4-f5.

Question: How should black (in this case) play after white plays b4?

This is the type of position I get into as black.

```
[FEN "1K1RR3/P1PQ3P/1PN1BP2/4P1P1/1B2p1p1/3pbn2/ppp1nq1p/1k1r2r1 b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
In general, a good plan in these situations is to then advance in the centre (either with ...f6-...e5 or just ...e5). When the position opens up, White will have a clear weakness on c3, which could be even more vulnerable than your d5-pawn. In addition, if you exchange off the d4-pawn with ...e5, White's control over the c5-square becomes weakened. However, your grip over c4 remains strong.

---
Tags: strategy, middlegame, pawn-structure
---


# Question
Title: Are there any opening traps that result in a windmill?
Are there any opening traps where your opponent can blunder into a windmill?

# Answer
I did some deep, deep searching and found few results. It seems that there are no actual windmill traps that are quick and widely known. This is unless you somehow manage to run through long and arbitrary sequences that are extremely unlikely to occur in actual play. Even then, it is a matter of your opponent who actually falls for it.

If you still consider it a trap though, the one genuine such trap that I have discovered so far occurs in the Russian Game, Damiano Variation.

```
[FEN ""]
[startply "26"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Nxe4 4. Qe2 Qe7 5. Qxe4 d6 6. d4 dxe5 7. Qxe5 Qxe5+ 8. dxe5 Nc6 9. Bb5 Bd7 10. Bxc6 Bxc6 11. O-O O-O-O 12. Bf4 g5 13. Bxg5 Rg8 14. Bxd8 Rxg2+ 15. Kh1 Rxf2+ 16. Kg1 Rg2+ 17. Kh1 Rg3+ 18. Rf3 Bxf3#

```

The trap occurs when Black plays 13... Rg8. If White strikes the false prey with the move 14. Bxd8?, thinking they have won an exchange, then Black can play 14... Rxg2! and commence a mate in 4 using the windmill tactic.

Another alternative, as @supercat suggested in a comment, is that Black could troll some and have fun demonstrating the power of the windmill.

```
[FEN "2kB1b2/ppp2p1p/2b5/4P3/8/8/PPP2PrP/RN3R1K b - - 0 1"]

1... Rxf2+ 2. Kg1 Rg2+ 3. Kh1 Rxc2+ 4. Kg1 Rg2+ 5. Kh1 Rxb2+ 6. Kg1 Rg2+ 7. Kh1 Rxa2+ 8. Rf3 Bxf3+ 9. Kg1 Bc5+ 10. Kf1 Rxh2 11. Ke1 Be3 12. Nd2 Bxd2+ 13. Kf1 Be3 14. Ke1 Rh1#

```
> 9 votes

---
Tags: opening, trap, windmill
---


# Question
Title: Is there research on how successfully chess can discipline children?
According to the article Armenia makes chess compulsory in schools, Armenia made chess mandatory in school for the sake of discipline. A lot of people in the real world don't work together to organize plans properly and really suffer the consequences later so I suspect Armenia figured that kids need to get disciplined in order to grow up as a person who works harder to organize plans. Maybe the Carnegie foundation did some research on it.

As an extra note, I found out about the Carnegie foundation from the question What does math education research know about difficulty vs. effectiveness? Maybe some day, there will be some Stack Exchange users who will be very willing and able to adopt an advanced research technique with one another. Then through that technique, they might eventually eventually find a connection between this question and the question What does math education research know about difficulty vs. effectiveness? through my reference to it in this question and then help direct Stack Exchange users to many very similar questions.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There's a lot, but it's probably hogowash

---
Tags: teaching, children, studies-published-report
---


# Question
Title: What do these numbers mean on chess.com?
What do the numbers in the top right corner signify?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Those are the times taken for the moves.
So e4 took 0.1 seconds,
e5 took 6.2 seconds and
Nf3 took 7.7 seconds.

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Why does Fishtesting test Stockfish against itself, not other engines?
As I understand the so-called Fishtesting, people write patches, then try the patches against the current version of Stockfish. If the new version performs better, it's promoted to be the main version; otherwise it's rejected.

Question: why test against the current version of Stockfish? It's worked in the past, and current Stockfish is a lot stronger than two-year old Stockfish. However, we can also see limitations to this approach. Although Stockfish is now capable of utterly destroying other traditional engines, it also recently lost the TCEC S15 superfinal against Leela. Therefore, why not test each new version against Leela?

The obvious answer is that Fishtesting's resources come from CPUs, and Leela is awful on CPU. However that shouldn't be fatal: one could just give Leela more time, e.g. with Stockfish running on 10s per game, give Leela 100s per game or whatever time odds are necessary to get the Leela ratio to the ratio in the superfinal. This will certainly slow down Fishtesting, but if it leads to an engine that can beat Leela in a match, that might still be worth it.

# Answer
> 6 votes
First of all, what does not become clear from other answers is that you of course can in principle use any opponent (with a consistent playing strength) to compare the playing strength of two versions of a program.

However, there are several good reasons to test the versions directly against each other, regardless of whether you are developing Stockfish or any other engine:

* The playing strength comparison of chess playing entities usually does not fulfill transitivity, i.e., if A \> B and B \> C, A \< C is still possible. So as long as a comparison against a large pool of opponents (in order to average out the transitivity issue) is not feasible, a direct comparison should be the most reliable measurement, although you can of course have the same issue for three versions of a single program.
* By doing a direct comparison, you reduce the required number of games in testing, because you only need to run one match instead of two, and at the same time you get smaller error bars for the playing strength difference.
* Testing against an opponent of (almost) equal strength maximizes the statistical sensitivity of a single game result, so you again save hardware costs. If the difference in playing strength is very high, the information/entropy of a single game is very low.

Furthermore, in the case of fishtest/Stockfish there are several concrete reasons why choosing a direct comparison was the most principled choice:

* At the time fishtest was initially developed, Leela was not available.
* Using commercial engines such as Komodo and Houdini was/is not an option because of licensing issues.
* Using other programs can introduce security risks as well as additional software dependencies or hardware requirements you want to avoid in a distributed computing environment.
* Previous to Leela, there basically was no open source engine that was strong enough in order to get statistically significant results when matching against Stockfish.

# Answer
> 7 votes
The point of fishtesting is to test if a newer version of Stockfish has become *stronger*. The definition of stronger is it beating its previous version.

I'm not sure how testing each new version against an engine like Leela would help. Your idea might be only accepting a new version of Stockfish if it performs better against Leela than the previous version of Stockfish did. So now each version of Stockfish is guaranteed to play better against Leela, but not guaranteed to be a better chess player overall. The reason is that Stockfish could rely on certain characteristics in Leela's play to win more games.

EDIT - I thought of an example that might help here. Suppose you were rated 1500 a few years ago, and now you're 1800. If you played your past self in a match it's clear you would win. But for the sake of argument it's possible your 1500-self would perform better against Kasparov than your current 1800 self. Maybe the 1500-self was less conservative and took way more risks. This manages to beat Kasparov in a rare game, while your current 1800 self would lose every time (yet the games would be slightly closer on average).

# Answer
> 3 votes
I'll agree in the main with @inertialignorance but I'd like to clarify the position a bit.

When human plays human, the result of one game is relatively meaningless, given the extreme variability of human play. (I'll use Kasparov v Deep Blue as an example of that variability -- on a good day *I* probably could have beaten Kasparov in the game he blundered away against DB.) So let's just ignore humanity in this and concentrate on the machine.

Machines play at a far more consistent level of skill than humans. Therefore a single game means more, and a series of games means a lot. So it makes sense to test the proposed Stockfish improvement against a machine. But why Stockfish?

Simply because there's no way to quantify "does better against Leela" in any meaningful way. It could do better, and still lose. But what's the standard for better, in that case? How do you prove it played better? I can't see a viable standard.

It's far simpler to prove Stockfish prime is an improvement over Stockfish original by simply playing a set of games and counting the results.

Edward Deming maintained that it was of prime importance to chose the correct metric, because you only know you improve because of what you measure. So ask the question: What is the purpose of the process? Why are you proposing a patch for Stockfish?

Is it really the ultimate goal of the patch to beat Leela? Or is it rather to make Stockfish play better chess? I'd say it's the latter. Beating Leela will come on its own if only Stockfish continues to improve enough.

Yes, an incremental improvement path for Stockfish could come to a plateau. Even so, the only verifiable path off that plateau will lie in making changes to it that make it better. If an approach "hits a wall," then a continual search for improvements will dictate another path. If a proposed alternate path can't beat the current path, why choose it?

# Answer
> 3 votes
There appears to be a hardware reason for not making this change.

The main problem with using Leela as a sparring opponent is that Leela runs best on GPU. It's possible to run Leela on CPU, but Leela's performance suffers a lot. The OP suggests giving Leela time odds to compensate, but time odds does not work very well: Leela's performance weakens so much that the time odds required are oppressively long.

To get an idea of how much weaker Leela is on CPU, we can look at Leela in season 12 of TCEC, when it didn't have GPU support and ran on CPU. Here's an example game played by Leela then. If one looks at the speeds it was achieving, it's about 1-3kn/s, or 1000-3000 positions per second. Comparatively, in the latest season 15 when Leela was running on powerful GPUs, it would achieve about 50kn/s (example game). Therefore to be able to test Stockfish against Leela on equal terms, one needs to give Leela about 25x time odds. If Stockfish has one minute, Leela needs 25 minutes.

As of time of writing, Fishtesting tests at two time controls: 10s + 0.1s/move, and 60s + 0.6s/move (patches that pass the first, short time control test get promoted to the longer one and tested again. Patches that pass the second then become the "new" version). At 25x time odds, Leela needs 250s + 2.5s/move in the first time control and 1500s + 15s/move in the second time control. The slowdown is tremendous; we would effectively have Leela playing at rapid time controls and not bullet. The number of games that can be completed in unit time would also drop by about 25x. Fishtesting regularly needs tens of thousands of games to test each patch; taking 25x as long to finish each test sounds unacceptably slow.

To add fuel to the fire, as far as I know, Leela had a smaller network in season 12 - the latest nets' performance could be even slower on CPU now.

It's possible that someday, if Fishtesting gets the GPU resources to test with Leela, it might switch over; however we are not at that point yet.

**Edit**: Lc0-CPU is currently playing at TCEC. It gets about 5knps. According to some people in the chat though, Lc0-CPU is modified to play on CPU; unmodified, it is about 80x slower than it is on GPU. Therefore there's a real hardware cost to using Lc0-CPU as a testing opponent.

# Answer
> 2 votes
(I'm adding another answer because it's not actually mine)

A Stockfish developer by the name of Михаил Чалый wrote this on the Fishcooking Google Groups (basically a forum for Stockfish developers) when this same idea was suggested there:

> 1) We don't have hardware suitable for lc0 on most of the machines (80+% of machines are noob machines\* w/o GPU);
>
> 2) testing against external engine will double error bars thus increase amount of games needing for test to be reliable by factor of 4;
>
> 3) you will need to write new logic since you a) can't use SPRT, b) you need to normalize leela/sf speed to some value (as we do with TC in normal tests) so you will need assymmetric time controls;
>
> 4) there are 0 proof that patches that work in selfplay don't work vs leela. Actually there are opposite proofs like fastgm 16 cores list where sf 11 is ahead of sf10 by 50 elo which is exactly what we measure if you match them against each other.
>
> So tldr - it's hard or almost impossible to do and gains of this are not really existing anyway.

\*As far as I'm aware, "noob machines" are machines owned by another person in the community named "noob", who has lots of CPU hardware available but not GPU hardware.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Inertial is correct. I should also add there was no strong open source engine before LC0. Both Komodo and Houdini had licensing restriction.

---
Tags: engines, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: What's the best move against this variation in the Philidor Defense?
What's the best Knight move for White against this variation (loved by beginners) in the Philidor Defense?

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 c5

```

# Answer
As Ian Bush already mentioned in a comment, 5.Bb5+ is arguably the strongest reply. After 5....Nd7 6.Nf5 or 5....Bd7 6.Bxd7+ Qxd7 7.Nf5, black has some serious problems with the weak pawn on d6 and square d5. Note that there are some similarities with a line in the Sicilian: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Bb5+.

Other moves are less convincing. After 5.Nf5 Nf6 or 5.Nb5 a6 6.N5c3 Nf6, black is probably fine. 5.Nf3 is not a bad move, but it doesn't take advantage of black's weaknesses.

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "1"]

      1.e4 (1...c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Bb5+) e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 c5 5.Bb5+ (5.Nf5 Nf6) (5.Nb5 a6 6.N5c3 Nf6) (5.Nf3) Bd7 (5...Nd7 6.Nf5) 6.Bxd7+ Qxd7 7.Nf5

```
> 4 votes

# Answer
I'm not sure if it's the best objective move but Nf3 followed by c4 seems pretty crushing to me. Black has a backward pawn on a semi-open file with no realistic way to advance it.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, 1.e4, philidor-defense
---


title: I want to know basic rules of chess

text:
# Question
Title: I want to know basic rules of chess
I want to play chess online with friends, and I am new to this community. As such want to know basics of kings, queens, rooks, bishops, knights, and pawns move and play, along with other rules, because I am going to develop chess application for android.

# Answer
The international chess federation has published the FIDE Laws of Chess which give the rules for playing chess.

"Article 2: The initial position of the pieces on the chessboard" would be a good place to start, followed by "Article 3: The moves of the pieces"
> 4 votes

# Answer
There are many resources online, but one good start might be the beginner's course on Lichess: https://lichess.org/learn

Lichess is free software and free of charge.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rules
---


# Question
Title: What is the best move for White in this position?
```
[title "White to move"]
[fen "2b2rk1/pr2n1bp/2p1p1p1/2pqPp2/N2p1P1Q/1P1P1N2/P1PB2PP/1R3R1K w - - 1 0"]

```

In this position, I was considering the best move for white. Re1 seems good but why not Ba5? Or even c4? After Re1, what's the best plan for white?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Why do you think the moves you suggest are any good?

Before you decide on any candidate moves you should analyze the position, consider how you can improve your position while minimizing counter play.

I would approach the position as follows. Other alternative ways might exist...

## Evaluate the position

Looking at the position I notice a number of things:

* the position is closed (so no immediate attacks on the king possible either side)
* It is very difficult for black to open the position without sacrificing at least a pawn. White on the other hand has several options to open the position with g4, c3, b4....
* White's pieces are much more active.
* White's pieces are not bound to protect anything (Rb7 has to protect Ne7 and Qd5 is protecting the pawn on c5).
* White has no weak pawns, while black has a doubled c pawn (c5 is easy to attack and particularly weak) and an isolated pawn on the a file.
* white has outposts for the knights on c4, d6, g5. Black has outposts on d5, c3, e3.
* white has two knights (often better in closed positions) while black has two bishops (often better in open positions)

## Candidate plans

Based on the analysis you should come up with ideas of how to approach the position. Generally you want to open the position to some extent as you are unlikely to win with 8 pawns on the board. You are not going to win either by just doing moves that look natural or superficially "good" like Re1 or Ba5 (what do you want to achieve?)

Think of a number of different plans and how realistic they are. Also consider your opponent's option. In this case, only white decides where to open the position and you should make sure that such opening of the position is to your advantage as black can basically just sit and wait.

Opening closed positions by pawn breaks on the flanks is a standard theme that any semi-advanced player knows.

A few possible ideas for a plan together with a rough evaluation. No concrete moves yet.:

* kingside attack/pawn storm involving moves like g4 or h5 at some point
    + Seems difficult to get enough pieces to the kingside to assist in the attack and the black king could also escape via f7.
* play against the c5 pawn (in a closed position)
    + with Bc1 and Ba3 you attack the pawn twice, but black could defend the pawn with Rb5 (after protecting the Ne7 otherwise). It is not obvious how to proceed with this plan afterwards.
* improve the position of your pieces
    + The Rb1 is on a strange square and you might want to reroute the Nf3 to c4. However it is usually better to have a concrete plan in mind before you move your pieces somewhere. Even if c4 is a great square for a knight you might want to figure out that for your plan it is better placed elsewhere.
* open the queenside with moves like b4 or c3 or c4 (after some preparation)

## Decide on a plan

Looking deeper into the rough plans judging how risky they are and in how far they can give you an advantage.

* kingside attack: looks very optimistic and I would forget about it quickly in this position.
* direct play against the c5 pawn with Bc1 and Ba3: does not seem to win the pawn anytime soon. Black can defend now with Rb5 and later with Bf8. The Ba3 and Na4 might be misplaced there if you cannot get anywhere with this plan. So I'd forget about this idea either.
* improve the position of pieces. As mentioned, particularly in closed positions you want to have the pieces not on some random good square but often where the action is, i.e. where the position is going to be opened. So this idea should be seen in combination with any opening ideas.
* opening the position on the queenside.
    + This looks like a very good idea since, once you open the position here, the doubled c pawn is much easier to attack and also it is easy to get white pieces to the queenside.
        - Need to decide between opening with c3/c4 or b4....

## Deciding between opening the position with b4 or c4/c3.

b4 gives black play on the open b file or even the option for counter play with c4. Also the Queen might enter in some lines via a2.

c3/c4 opens the c file for white which is good, but potentially leaves white with a weak d pawn.

Which one to pick depends a bit on your experience with such positions. To me the opening with c3, c4 seems much safer giving black less counterplay and you have immediately targets with the weak black pawns on the c file.

## Deciding on concrete moves

Once we've decided on a plan (opening the position with c3 or c4), it is time to settle on a move. An immediate c4 or c3 is probably premature as your pieces are not ideally placed.

How can we prepare the opening of the position so that we avoid any counterplay? Where should the pieces go?

* rooks on c1 (to have immediate pressure on the c pawns) and d1 (to protect d3 and later perhaps support a push to d4) seems very obvious
* queen: might want to transfer via f2 to the center/queenside
* knights and bishop look ok-ish where they are

So, I would improve the position with Rbc1, Rfd1, perhaps Qf2 and then play c3 or c4. Whether you first play Rbc1 or Rfd1 should not matter much.

Note that there are at least two tactical ideas that help you in opening the position with c4:

1. If the queen move somewhere after c4, the pawn on c5 is not protected and can be captured.
2. After exchanging the black d pawn for the white c pawn, the white pawn on d3 is not really hanging because Nxc5 forks the queen and the rook.

So in summary I'd go with Rbc1 now and later open the position with c3 or c4.

# Answer
> 3 votes
First, how would you evaluate the position? This should help you come up with a plan and thus the moves to consider. It seems you are randomly selecting moves, which you would then calculate the consequences.

Black has serious weaknesses you can think to exploit. How about those c-pawns? c5 looks very weak. And White's Knights are probably drooling over all the holes they can hop on.

B-c1-a3xc5 looks like the juiciest plan (someday getting a Knight to d6 is attractive too). You just have to make sure Black can't get away with something like c5-c4. Black will have to do something desperate for counter-play.

A dream line would go: 1.Bc1 Re8 2.Ba3 Rb5 3.Nfd2 Bf8 4.Nc4 Rd8 5.Nd6 Ra5 6.Qf6

# Answer
> 1 votes
My knight on a4 is crying to go to c4 then even on to d6 so moving it to b2 to get there is great, especially since it will take an extra move for my opponent to get his bishop to a6 as the rook is currently in the way.

There is a temptation to play Ng5. My opponent would have to advance the h-pawn to prevent the threat against it. h6 would force my knight to go back again so appears to waste tempo but it also potentially weakens my opponent's kingside. And what if I leave the knight on g5 and play Rf3? After the exchange on g5 my opponent can move the king to f7 before my rook gets to h3.

But hey, what if first I get the other knight to d6 - that covers f7 and then I can consider Ng5 later followed by moving the rook to f3 and h3.

If I have sacrificed the knight and the pawn on f4 is now on g5 there's a chance the bishop will remain useful on d2.

I haven't put this through an engine, and of course my opponent will play moves in between but I like Nb2 for my move at this point.

(I am going to post this, then do my analysis. Maybe there's a flaw but it's a plan, not necessarily the best move).

# Answer
> 1 votes
I just want to remark that it is not always necessary to have a definite plan. If you do have a single, obviously best plan, it is because your opponent has played badly. Here, even though Black has played badly, having weak pawns and disorganized pieces, there does not seem to be a clear way of exploiting this. One reaction to this situation is just to improve your pieces and wait for Black to make another mistake, while keeping more than one plan as an option. I like the play described by @user1583209, but I want to put forward an alterative.

Some answers have observed that there is no prospect of a quick Kingside attack, but there is a good prospect of a slow one. I note that the Na4 is badly placed for a K-side attack. It can be improved by N-b2-c4 and perhaps a2-a4. Then it cuts out virtually all Black Q-side play. It stands on a good square and has a good square to go to on d6. We will need to advance our g and/or h Pawns, so we put the K where it will be safer (perhaps e2), and then bring the Rooks to g1 and h1, We put the Bishop where it can join in, say h4. It usually is not good to lead the attack with a Q, so find a place where she is mobile and can join in, like f2. All of this might take ten or fifteen moves, but I dont see any way for Black to take advantage.

Moreover, this does not involve any committal moves. If you were to become convinced that the c3 plan was better, you could actually take back almost all of these moves and start again

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


# Question
Title: Two knights can move to e7, but the move is only specified as Ne7
In the diagram below, Black makes the move denoted as “Ne7” which moves the black knight on g8 move to e7.

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pp3ppp/2n1p3/1BPpP3/8/4B3/PPP2PPP/RN1QK1NR b KQkq - 0 1"]

1... Ne7

```

The problem is, based on my limited knowledge about chess, “Ne7” should be ambiguous in this case since also the black knight on c6 can also move to e7.

**How come we need only to write this move as “Ne7”? Is it simply a wrongfully written move?**

I found this PGN online, so I have not written/played them myself. I would rather not go in and correct the moves myself, and I would rather find a way to disambiguate them correctly.

# Answer
> 30 votes
The c6 knight is pinned by the bishop on b5. Note that if the c6 knight were to move it would leave Black's king in check, which renders any such move illegal.

Therefore it is ok in this case to write "Ne7" instead of "Nge7", since the pin means that there is no ambiguity as to which knight moves.

# Answer
> -8 votes
This is an error.

When two pieces of the same type can move to the target square, you must specify enough information to make the move unambiguous. The person / computer notating this should have switched to algebraic notation (g8e7) or specified Nge7. If a human entered this, then it was human error, plus a system that doesn't check for such errors. If a computer entered this, it's a bug.

---
Tags: pgn, notation
---


title: When should I play f3/f6?

text:
# Question
Title: When should I play f3/f6?
For context, I've been playing chess for around two years now, and my rating on Lichess is ~1850.

When I first started playing, I learned a lot of heuristics for playing well, e.g. rooks are better than knights/bishops, castling is good (maybe better than you think, as a beginner), trade down when you're up in material. As I got better I started learning exceptions to these rules- a strong knight might be better than a passive rook, the king is better uncastled in the endgame, don't make "even trades" when they're not really even (e.g. if you have to make concessions to your pawn structure).

For all of these examples my intuition eventually caught up to the rules I was following blindly. To a beginner all rooks are better than all knights, because it's hard to judge when pieces are strong -- this instinct only came after watching many more in-depth analyses of games where one player sacrificed the exchange.

But there is one rule that I never learned to break, and that is "never play f3/f6" (at least when I'm castled kingside). To me it's clear why I *shouldn't*, sinc it often creates weaknesses in front of my king, and there have been many games in my past where pushing the f-pawn was the losing move. But it's never obvious when I *should*. For example, in some of my game analyses the engine says that f3/f6 was the best move, but I can't see the idea behind it. (When it's the only move to prevent getting mated or forked, it's a bit clearer, so I guess I'm asking about the positional ideas behind it.)

So, when should I play f3/f6? I'm specifically asking this without reference to any opening, as a rule of thumb akin to the ones I brought up above.

Note that it is also easier for me to move my f-pawn when it gives me another clear positional advantage. For example I might not mind the weaknesses that arise from capturing an e-pawn because I build a stronger center. This is a bit of a contradiction with the opening-agnostic viewpoint I'm trying to have, but I guess I am asking specifically about the case of "dry" positions with a lot of meandering and no clear path.

# Answer
It's probably helpful to ask oneself **why** a move such as f3/f6 (moving forward, I will only consider f3, but it should work from black's perspective as well) would be useful in general. **Why** would I ever even consider making such a move? The very obvious reasons should be clear to most: if I want to reinforce/control/attack the squares e4 and/or g4, then of course the pawn move to f3 could be very useful. Another very obvious reason for making the move is of course the pawn being attacked.

For reasons a bit more subtle, the move could also prove useful if I for some reason wish to vacate the f2 square (for instance, to clear the h4-e1 diagonal for my dark-squared bishop if it were pushed back by a black pawn mass). Another subtle reason is that the move could be used in a pawn endgame in favour of the immediate f4 push for tempo-related reasons, or more generally to induce zugzwang.

I've now listed all good reasons for making the move that I've been able come up with. If you can think of another general scenario where specifically f3 is called for, feel free to suggest it; I'm having a difficult time coming up with any other good general reason to play the move.

Now for the fun part: **Why** would I **not** wish to play f3? This question is equally important to the first one if you want a good heuristic for when to play f3. The reasons for **not** playing the move that I can think of are the following:

* It blocks the f3 square for the g1 knight. This is a major drawback of opening systems that make an early f3 push in the opening, see for instance the Sämisch system against the KID.
* It begins opening up the a7-g1 diagonal. This is generally not great since white's king is often on g1, just waiting to be harrassed if this diagonal opens.
* It weakens the control over the e3 square. This means that White's dark-squared bishop doesn't really have a safe haven on e3 anymore. This is a common way to lose as White in, say, the open Sicilian.
* It blocks the d1-h5 diagonal for White's queen/light-squared bishop.
* It creates a so-called "hook" for Black's pawns/pieces to attack in a potential kingside attack by Black.
* It can be a waste of time if I'm in a pawn race (either literal pawn race in an endgame or a "pawn storm" race). Sometimes you can go ahead with the pawn push g2-g4 without even defending the square first; after all, if I'm aiming to use a pawn storm to soften up black's king on the kingside, removing the g pawn opens up the g-file for my rook. This last point is highlighted in many games in the open Sicilian, where White attacks Black's king on g8 while Black attacks White's king on b1; in these races, every tempo counts.

Again, if you can think of another good reason not to play f2-f3, then feel free to add it to the list. Know these reasons well, because some of them are not that immediately obvious why they are a big deal. For instance, giving up control over the e3 square may seem innocent enough, but in many cases it can be surprisingly detrimental to your position, especially if the position is not closed. Therefore you shouldn't make weakening moves such as f3 without a clear intention in mind.

While I haven't really heard the rule-of-thumb to "never play f3/f6", the above list of reasons **not** to play it seems like a good explanation as to why someone gave you that advice; most of the points I listed above are not easy for a beginner to fully appreciate, so it's simpler to just remember "don't play f3/f6" when you're still new to the game. After all, before you can break the rules, you have to understand them first.

Therefore, as you're now no longer a beginner (as indicated by your rating), I would propose this **new and improved** heuristic for the f3/f6 move:

**Never play f3/f6 if the *good* reasons for playing it do not *outweigh* the *negative side-effects* of playing it.**

As you can see, this advice would be pointless to give to a beginner, but for a player who is starting to learn things beyond the bare basics of positional chess it is much more suitable - after all, as you get stronger you will notice that every decision you make is a tradeoff between pros and cons of that decision. Even the *obvious* moves are decisions which are made easy by the fact that it's very clear what part of the pro/con list outweighs the other, but more difficult positional decisions may sometimes seem like a coin toss. In general, your chess ability is directly tied to how well you manage to accurately make up the list of pros and cons for given moves, and in the more difficult cases you will not be able to use the crutches that are commonly given to novice players to evaluate a decision with accuracy.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The most common scenario, e.g. in the Yugoslav attack, is when you have castled queenside or can do so before an attack on f2/f7 takes place. Once your king is safe on the queenside the f-pawn isn’t needed in defense of the king.

If you’ve castled kingside, another key factor is whether the opponent has a Bishop (or Queen!) they can place on the f2-c5 (resp. f7-c4) diagonal. If their bishop is traded, or you can control that diagonal with your Bishop, then your king is still safe after moving the f-pawn.
> 5 votes

# Answer
f3/f6 is often a very double-edged move. It often will weaken your king position and often take away a nice square for the knight, but it can also achieve a lot. It can prepare a e4/e5 push, disturb a pawn center, or prepare a g4/g5 push, or solidify e4. In some circumstances, it can be useful for defense as well. Usually, f3/f6 is not a good move, since it achieves little in most positions. However, in many cases, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

To explain each of the reasons I gave with examples-

Prepare a e4/e5 push- The first example that comes to mind is the f3 Nimzo-Indian. Another example is in the Queen's Gambit Declined Exchange variation, where f3+e4 is a fairly common plan in the middlegame. Disturb a pawn chain- The classic example is many French Advance variations, but this is also a fairly common theme in the Caro-Kann Advance. This game I played is a nice example of the f6 push breaking down a pawn center.

Prepare a g4/g5 push: This is probably the most common. Probably the most clear example is the English Attack and similar ideas in numerous Open Sicilians, where white goes Be3, Qd2, f3, g4, and 0-0-0 in some order and goes for an attack. f3 is very important here to prepare g4. Another example is the Samisch variation of the King's Indian Defense, where sometimes white will go for g4.

Solidify e4- The Samisch Variation of the King's Indian Defense also uses f3 to support e4. Another example is the Fantasy Variation of the Caro-kann.

There are almost certainly many more examples of this.

Generally, f3 or f6 is not a good move, unless you know it's a common theme in the opening or others with similar structures (e.g. French, Caro-Kann). Definitely be careful about playing it, but there are many cases where you should.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: positional-play, pawns
---


# Question
Title: What is a good size chess board for an eight-year-old?
I'd like to buy my nephew a folding wooden chess set for his birthday.

When I played with my own children when they were smaller it was hard for them to go more than a few minutes without fidgeting and jiggling that inevitably upset the board, so I am pretty sure that the larger the pieces are, the better the experience will be for everyone.

Is something like this or this 10" set likely to be too small? Or is it better to have something larger?

I want a folding set that he can safely put away with the pieces in it. I don't really see the point of a magnetic board, I'd rather just have heavier pieces. I'd be glad to hear out any experiences and advice.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Larger pieces and board may help to keep a better overview for a beginner. As soon as his interest in chess becomes more serious, he will start to be careful with the board, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to the weight of the figures, most sets aren't heavy enough to withstand mechanical force (unless you choose marble pieces).

I'd recommend around the 14" or larger, keeping in mind though that as long he's not actively playing the set could just be one more toy cluttering the shelves in his room.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I'd say size does not matter much here. He'll get used to whatever you choose. Standard sized boards used in tournaments are alright with most people

---
Tags: chessboards, children
---


title: Is this a sound elephant offer?

text:
# Question
Title: Is this a sound elephant offer?
In the following dobutsu shogi position, is Gc3xc2 a bad move?

```
  ABC
 +---+
1|   | g
2|lce|
3|E G|
4| L | *C
 +---+

```

# Answer
It's not a sacrifice, it's a trade after 1. Gxc2 G\*b3 and taking the elephant on a3 next.

On the other hand, since doubutsu shogi is strongly solved, you can use an engine/tablebase (e.g. https://github.com/fuzxxl/dobutsu) to set up and see the solution anyway. (I haven't done this, though.)
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, chess-variants, sacrifice, shogi, unorthodox-pieces
---


# Question
Title: How many queens can be on the board without neither forced mate nor forced stalemate (53?)?
I was wondering how many queens can be put on boards without the position being a forced checkmate or a forced stalemate. The best I came up with is 53 this position.

```
[FEN "QQQQQRK1/QQQQQPr1/QQQQQRNk/QQQQQQpB/QQQQQQQQ/QQQQQQQQ/QQQQQQQQ/QQQQQQQQ w - - 0 1"]

```

Is there a way to fit 54 or more queens, given the constraints)? And if not, how would one show that more queens cannot be placed?

# Answer
> 10 votes
57 Queens:

```
[FEN "QQQQQB1k/QQQQQ1bq/QQQQQQKB/QQQQQQQQ/QQQQQQQQ/QQQQQQQQ/QQQQQQQQ/QQQQQQQQ b - - 0 1"]

```

(edited FEN, White to move).
(2edited, thanks Noam D. Elkies)

---
Tags: checkmate, problems, stalemate, queens
---


# Question
Title: Maximum number of quiet moves in a position
The question of how many captures a position can have has been asked in the past: Maximum number of captures in a position

Without captures, and without promotion, which I define as “quiet” moves, what is the maximum number of quiet moves that one side can have in a legal chess position can have?

# Answer
> 0 votes
The maximum number for one side in a legal position is **216 quiet moves**, according to this 46 year old chess problem.

```
[Title "Thur Row, Chess Ultimates 1974, 216 Non-Capturing Moves"]
[FEN "R6R/1K3Q2/3Q4/1Q4Q1/4Q3/2Q4Q/Q4QNN/2BB3k w - - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: problems, pawn-promotion, records, captures
---


title: Suggestions for blindfold exercises

text:
# Question
Title: Suggestions for blindfold exercises
I can now name the color of any square. Does anyone have suggestions for some other visualization exercises I can do to improve my blindfold chess?

# Answer
I like to replay whole games from memory after watching an animation of the whole game a couple of times. I use my own web app for this purpose which immediately reports the first deviation form the game. I sometimes turn on the blindfold setting and make the moves on an empty interactive chessboard. It is possible to go through a whole game like this.

For example, try this link https://tinyurl.com/srwuzqd to replay Morphy's opera game blindfold playing White. The system can be configured blindfold or not, replay one side or both.
> 4 votes

# Answer
A friend of mine (and a stronger player) suggested one exercise which has helped me in developing my visualization skills.

Take a game, any game and read the first two moves of both sides (ie total four plies), visualize the position now on board, then make these moves on board, see if your visualized position was right.

Read the next two moves and visualize the current position then make the moves on board and check if you got it right.

Go through the entire game in these steps of two moves.

once you are fairly comfortable, try in steps of three moves, Gradually increase the number of moves.

I am doing this for about 8 months now and now I can visualize boards over ~10-12 moves.

Already I play blindfold chess in lichess.org, by making the site speak out opponents move and I entering move through the keyboard. (Even though I look at the board once in ~10 moves)
> 8 votes

---
Tags: calculation, blindfold-chess, visualization
---


# Question
Title: By how much does being told what piece to move improve one's Elo?
Here is a (rather humorous) game in which a 900 player is told by a much higher rated player *only* which *kind* of piece to move (e.g. along the lines of "bishop", not "light square bishop").

Is it safe to assume that this assistance would improve the player's game, and presuming so, is there any statistical approximation (or rule of thumb) to estimate the expected improvement in someone's performance (measured by Elo) when given such an advantage?

E.g. would a 900 player assisted in this way by a 2700 player become a 1500 player? (that's a wild guess for argument's sake)

# Answer
> 8 votes
This chess variant is called hand and brain.

From watching many of these games, I can guess that the only boost achieved is that low rated players get advice on a piece which is hanging. So given your example, the hand would appear to gain Elo (named after Arpad Elo) just for not leaving pieces en prise. Another advantage, although not very useful, is that by restricting the number of moves from the usual 30 down to about 8 does increase the shear odds of guessing the correct move.

The downside of this game is that the tactics (which most consider to be 90-99% of chess) is severely restricted. It's dangerous start a combination or even a simple attack unless the lower rated player understand. It's also possible that a difference in playing style would adversely effect the choice of moves. That is, an aggressive player always wants to push forward, and a positional player wants to suffocate to opponent, so each has a different view of the most correct move.

There currently isn't enough data to give a statistical answer, but I can guess about a curve. A low rated player could play about 300 lower than the higher rated player with a limit around 1500. As the lower rated player rating rises, this playing strength average around 100 points below the lower rated player. As the lower rated player rating reaches the master level, the playing strength almost disappears.

EDIT: Expanding answer to better explain and suggest research. I've only seen about 50 hand and brain games, so my data is unofficial and sprace. My first exposure to hand and brain chess was on twitch.tv watching Anna Rudolf(2200) and Alexandra Botez(2000) play, from their respective channels. Two channels which often have a pair of players that have played are HashtagChess (2200 and 1800) and CurlyQueenn (both 1900). (On of the members of CurlyQueen is getting her own channel, so they may stop streaming together.) I've seen other channels play this game, but they don't play regularly enough to be suggestions.

The chatter shows that they often guess wrongly about what the brain move was. But, since there is a chat box, you could ask them directly for their opinions. You could note the games and have computer analyse and compare to their normal games. (You can tell which site they are playing from and can see their user name, but I'm sure that they will be helpful if you just ask.)

NOTE: I have some objections to the enforcement of twitch.tv policies, so I won't be able to get this information directly.

---
Tags: online-chess, elo, statistics
---


# Question
Title: How do you manually set switches when you are compiling Stockfish in Visual Studio?
How do you manually set switches when you are compiling Stockfish in Visual Studio?

In the type.h file it saids:

> When Makefile is not used (e.g. with Microsoft Visual Studio) some switches need to be set manually:
>
> -DNDEBUG | Disable debugging mode. Always use this for release.
>
> -DNO\_PREFETCH | Disable use of prefetch asm-instruction. You may need this to | run on some very old machines.
>
> DUSE\_POPCNT | Add runtime support for use of popcnt asm-instruction. Works | only in 64-bit mode and requires hardware with popcnt support.
>
> -DUSE\_PEXT | Add runtime support for use of pext asm-instruction. Works | only in 64-bit mode and requires hardware with pext support.

I just want to where where/how do you put these "commands"?

# Answer
> 1 votes
This question should be in programming.

These can be put in a top h file, the best being stdafx.h. Just include "#define DNDEBUG",

They can be added to the command line/compiler commands. Under VS6, Project-\>Settings (Alt+f7), there is a box to add project settings under the c/c++ tab.

---
Tags: engines, stockfish
---


title: What does this chess proverb mean?

text:
# Question
Title: What does this chess proverb mean?
> "Chess is a sea where a gnat may drink from and an elephant may bathe in." ~ Anonymous

The above proverb is scattered everywhere throughout chess literature, folklore and even software.

I have never fully understood its meaning, however. Does the gnat represent a patzer and the elephant represent a master? Is the proverb trying to say that the game is a game for everyone?

# Answer
> 23 votes
I disagree with all answers treating the gnat and elephant as allegory for players of varying skill level.

Rather, the actions of the gnat and elephant are the main point. Chess as a game with rules is not very broad. There are only six types of piece. Half the actual number of pieces are identical and have moves that are almost as simple as it is possible to be (with the exception of *en passant*, and even then, it is not nearly as complicated as many chess teachers and commentators make it out to be). The other pieces are moved in ways so simple a toddler can understand them. The board is a simple square only eight spaces wide. If one only looks from above the surface, chess is indeed narrow enough that a small insect could metaphorically fly across its whole.

However, in the centuries of its play, strategies and tactics have developed almost to excess. There is gambit and counter-gambit and analysis measured in the millions of pages, billions of words spent on dissecting just a few landmark matches together, let alone the game as a whole. If one considers the depth the game can present, it is indeed a sea deep enough to drown the metaphorical elephant in.

# Answer
> 13 votes
I think your thought "Does the gnat represent a patzer and the elephant represent a master?" is right. A beauty of chess is this combination of two aspects. The rules are simple enough for a child to learn. But the game has so much depth that you can spend years studying the game, and amass a great deal of knowledge about it --- but there is more to the game still to discover.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Edward Winter's page about Chess Proverbs has this and a few other proverbs. A couple look like they could be related to the one you are asking about:

* "The game of chess is like the ocean, which a gnat may cross and where an elephant may drown". (English translation of a Spanish version of possibly the same proverb.)
* "Though thine antagonist be an ant, imagine he were an elephant". (Similar in that it involves an elephant and a small insect.)

I think the two proverbs I quote above are clear: don't underestimate your opponent, because in chess anyone can win (as any adult who has been beaten by a bright child knows firsthand).

Going back to the original proverb, perhaps it is a more subtle and less violent expression of the same idea, with drinking and bathing instead of crossing and drowning. Or maybe it was a case of "lost in translation". :-)

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think this proverb is all about what you get out of or take from chess. Some people are like the gnat that only get a very small drink from the sea of chess, just barely scratching the surface of its depths & mystery. However, some people can be like the elephant that is completely bathing in the sea, totally immersed in chess and getting much more out of it. It is saying that whoever you are, from that gnat all the way to the elephant, you can get something out of chess.

Some people aren't able to get much from chess because they don't have the skills or knack for it and/or they lack interest. Some have a great love of chess but have to work at it to get there, and eventually they bathe in the sea of chess after a lot of effort. Wherever you stand now, chess can be rewarding if you have a passion for it and work at it. If you happen to be naturally gifted when it come to chess ability, then you are very lucky! Chess is the ancient game of Kings and has a myriad of mysteries to explore. Happy exploring to the gnats & the elephants and everything in between!

---
Tags: history
---


title: Static null move CPW engine

text:
# Question
Title: Static null move CPW engine
I have two questions about a code implementing a static null move. The questions are in the code.

The code is extracted from here: CPW engine search code

```
 if (depth < 3
            && !is_pv
            && !flagInCheck
            &&  abs(beta - 1) > -INF + 100) // 1. Why this condition?
        {
            int static_eval = eval(alpha, beta, 1);

            int eval_margin = 120 * depth; // 2. Why 120? What does it mean?
            if (static_eval - eval_margin >= beta)
                return static_eval - eval_margin;
        }

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
Just guessing without reading all of the code to understand completely.

1) The third condition to not preform a Null Move is zugswang. Another hint is that INF is used to report a mate-in-x.

2) The purpose of a Null Move is to determine if we could do nothing and still be better so to cause an early cutoff. I assume that they represent a pawn value as 100, so they want a slightly higher favorable eval before it causes a cutoff.

---
Tags: engines, programming
---


title: Setting up BugHouse on my computer

text:
# Question
Title: Setting up BugHouse on my computer
I want to have a setup on my computer to play BugHouse with three engine. One engine would be my partner and the other two would be the opposing team. How can I setup such a scenario? I use Linux but I can also use Windows.

I have seen the support for BugHouse and XBoard as a client, but I have not found a way to connect the two to play BugHouse with two open XBoards.

I found such a program in the android playstore, but the engine in the app was very poor not much fun.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The only way I know of playing bughouse using XBoard/Winboard is to play via FICS, see e.g. https://github.com/ianfab/Fairy-Stockfish/wiki/Setting-up-Fairy-Stockfish-on-FICS#bughouse (it works very similar for other bughouse engines), i.e., it does not work offline. You would just use four FICS guest accounts whereof three are your engine instances, and create two bughouse teams from them. I tried this several times already and for me it works fine, although of course it is not very convenient to set up, but once set up it works smoothly.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I tried it with sjeng and it works:

Three computer player with:

```
cat <(echo -e "guest\n\n") - | xboard -zp -ics -icshost=freechess.org -fcp=sjeng -zippyVariants "bughouse" -zippyBughouse 2

```

and

```
set bugopen 1

```

I partnered the first two

For me I started

```
cat <(echo -e "guest\n\n") - | xboard  -ics -icshost=freechess.org

```

and

```
set bugopen 1

```

And I partnered me with the third one.

After this I started with

```
match Guest... 5 0 bughouse

```

It is a little bit tricky to get the Guest-Ids but it works.

And I loose every time :-(

I have problems with the rule to set a new figure with check into the board. In my youth we played without this rule. But I cannot find a way to configure the rules.

Another rule in my youth was the possibility to steal a figure from you partners enemy. If you promote a pawn then you can get his queen and he gets the pawn as a figure to set it on the board. Bit I did not find an engine to play in such a way.

---
Tags: engines, bughouse
---


# Question
Title: Using the Stockfish move generator in a home chess engine
Basically, I’m creating a chess AI and I want to focus on the search algorithm rather than the most complete way or fastest move generation portions. So, for now, I was thinking I could use a prebuilt move generator from a tested and well-known source such as Stockfish.

But I'm having trouble understanding how Stockfish represents the current gamestate and how I can read it, how I can get Stockfish to essentially loop through all of the possible nodes, and how I can check if a given node is a leaf. If someone could point me to a resource or knows how Stockfish does this it would be greatly appreciated.

# Answer
For the fastest move generation I suggest the below code.

https://github.com/Mk-Chan/WyldChess/blob/master/src/magicmoves.c

It’s not the Stockfish source code, but I was able to use it for my own hobby engine and I can tell you that it’s very fast. If you have a lot of trouble I can write a post about how I did it.
> 5 votes

# Answer
It's javascript but chess.js https://github.com/jhlywa/chess.js/ will keep track of board state, load & generate pgns and fens, and tell you what moves are legal.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish
---