# Question
Title: Top chess books and online software that would help me increase my rating
My current rating is 1200 and I had stopped chess for some time due to school exam pressure.

What steps should I take to increase my rating? I do tactics from chess.com everyday.

Please suggest some books which would help me in tactics, endgames, middlegame.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I would recommend continuing doing tactics everyday, although at your rating doing tactics that aren't time sensitive would be better. I'd recommend doing the standard tactics on the free site chesstempo.com for unlimited tactics that won't dock you points for taking too long. Also 303 tricky tactics is a nice puzzle book collection of problems that should be right around your level.

As for the best books to increase your rating I'd say The Amateurs Mind and Silman's Complete Endgame Course are both books perfect for helping a club level player like yourself improve quite a bit.

I'd also advise finding a favorite youtube IM/GM to follow. Chess 24, the st Louis chess club, and chess.com all have youtube accounts and put out videos that will benefit you and aren't pure book study. There are also masters who put up videos for their blitz games like cubematter, kingscrusher, chessnetwork, among others that are good to follow. You can get a sense of the kind of moves they play and look for just through seeing enough of their blitz games.

Lastly if you want to talk to a community of chess players give twitch.TV's chess section a look through. You can watch chess streamers and live chat with a decent number of viewers.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Since you use chess.com, you can also try out their very good chess mentor. They are adapted for different rating levels.

I also found mr. Silman's books (like "The Amateur's Mind" for example) to be invaluable. And of course study the classics.

# Answer
> 0 votes
If you have a bias to certain openings, I might get books about those openings. This will help you get better at selected openings but it won't necessarily help your general chess skill.

---
Tags: strategy, endgame, rating, tactics, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: Lichess.org rating vs rating in real life
How does a chess rating at Lichess.org compare against a rating in real life, in classic chess (more than 8 min)?

# Answer
> 2 votes
The largest problem with sites like LiChess and Chess.com is that the standard pools are not very reflective of Over The Board rating. Most people play chess online for the Blitz and Lightning games. Chess.com recently came out with some statistics that showed that their Blitz rating pool is roughly the same as USCF currently. I do not know how well that would translate for the Standard pools.

When I was 1900 playing G/30 games on Chess.com and ICC (Internet Chess Club), I was rating roughly 2100/2200 on both sites. This was years ago though, so again, not entirely sure how accurate they are.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I played a 2150 who had a 2190 fide

It's hard to tell though with lower rated players though. Also, 8 minute isn't a normal time control for rated games.

Lastly, I wouldn't worry so much about ratings and instead worry about your progress measured against yourself.

# Answer
> 0 votes
My real life rating is higher than all my online ratings. This could be because I'm more serious in real life tournaments and calculate much deeper into positions than I do in online chess. It could also be I'm worse at faster games. I know my highest online ratings tend to be longer time controls.

Fast chess favors opening knowledge, quick solid play while looking for tactical opportunitues, and good endgame knowledge. Otb tournaments favor objectively best moves in general, as well as being able to set up positions that are complex enough your opponent can't accurately evaluate them.

---
Tags: online-chess
---


# Question
Title: I sometimes miss very obvious moves. How can I improve my game?
I am a hobby player but I would like to improve my game.

I like to watch annotated games. For instance, I have watched all games of Josh Waitzkin in Chessmaster GM Edition.

Also, I watch games in YouTube as well.

In some variations, I find so said "hard to find" or "advanced" combinations at a glance. The correct move almost shines on the board. In some other variations, on the other hand, I really struggle to find a simple mate-in-one move or a beginner's fork.

What would be the reason behind this behavior of my brain? How can I improve my vision?

# Answer
I think you should do more Tactics training (https://www.chess.com/tactics/) (http://chesstempo.com/chess-tactics.html). Also You should read this

Here's an important segment

> There are a few common targets that will help you in finding tactical targets in chess:
>
> 1- Hanging (undefended) pieces can be used to gain tempo moves or to win them in tactical combinations.
>
> 2- An exposed (unsafe) king is a permanent target that can easily be combined with other threats.
>
> 3- The geometrical relation between pieces, in example – pieces on the same diagonal, file or rank.
>
> 4- A piece with a very important defensive task can become a target for an attack.
>
> 5- A piece with more than once defensive task can become overloaded and exploited.
>
> 6- Pieces in attacking positions versus pieces in defending positions have more flexibility and thus more opportunity for tactical maneuvers.
>
> 7- A majority of forces in a certain part of the board can outnumber the defenders and create opportunities for a tactics.
>
> 8- A piece with severely limited mobility can sometimes be trapped or kept out of the game.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I developed a "single-move tactics" checklist for myself that, when followed, helps with what you are describing. (Of course, it is easy to "forget" to follow it in the heat of battle or during fast-time-control games, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile anyway.) I based it on Dan Heisman's mantra of what to analyze: "checks, captures, threats; in that order", with simplification down to a single move (two ply). The gory details are on my blog (post here), but the simplified list is:

```
0.5 Search for all the below, in order, for both you and your opponent.
1. Mate in one.
2. Give check from a non-attacked square (checking piece cannot be taken).
2.5 Identify loose pieces (pieces not protected by any fellow pieces).
3. Captures of any of opponent's loose pieces.
4. Capture of any piece by a piece of lesser value (consider knights and bishops equal in this step).
5. Attack any of opponent's loose pieces from a non-attacked square (attacking piece cannot be captured).
6. Attack a greater-value piece with a lesser-value piece (knights and bishops equal) from a non-attacked square (attacking piece cannot be captured).
7. Create a passed pawn on a non-attacked square (cannot be captured).
8. A move that threatens mate-in-one on the following move.

```

Good luck!

As noted in "gory details", but worth mentioning here, is that the "power moves" really come from single moves that combine more than one of the above, such as a move that attacks both a loose piece and a greater-value piece (fork), or a move that captures a loose pawn and also gives check, or a move that threatens mate-in-one and also attacks a loose piece, etc.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, training
---


title: Engines like Arena

text:
# Question
Title: Engines like Arena
So i have implemented an intelligent chess agent using reinforcement learning. For the training part of the agent, i want to play as many games as possible.

I am aware of three options:

* **Self playing**, where the agent plays against itself and in the process learns the game of chess.
* **Play against human**,where the agent plays against a human player and learns.
* **Play against other agents**,where the agent plays against other intelligent agents and learns the game.

I want to try out the third of these options and have my agent play against other agents.

One good way to do this is loading my agent into the Arena chess engine. My problem is that Arena requires the agent to support UCI, and my agent doesn't.

Are there any alternatives that i can use except Arena?

# Answer
> 1 votes
We usually say "engine" rather than "agent". Agent is a term used in academic papers.

I've used cutechess to train my models. It offers more than Arena and it's faster to run, but it's command line only.

You'll need to implement UCI or Winboard protocol to make it happen. It's really not that hard. Your engine will be given a position or moves to start thinking. You'll do your search then return a move. Very simple. Please google "UCI specification" for details.

---
Tags: engines, learning, training
---


# Question
Title: What is the lowest possible rating you can achieve (if any)?
This question comes from a lack of understanding of how ratings work. What is the lowest rating you can get ( or does it never stop decreasing )?

# Answer
> 3 votes
If the Elo system is implemented in its purest form, there is no theoretical lower limit for a rating.

Practically though, every chess organisation implements its rating system a bit differently and often there are rating floors that constitute the lowest possible rating.

The USCF for example seems to have a rating floor of 100.

---
Tags: rating
---


title: If the king is blocked is it checkmate?

text:
# Question
Title: If the king is blocked is it checkmate?
If the king is alone and it is blocked is it checkmate? And opponent has blocked with the king and pawn and he did not keep check if we move means that it is check.

# Answer
> 1 votes
if you are to make a move next, and there is no place for your king to move, then its a stalemate. draw.

---
Tags: stalemate
---


# Question
Title: Is there a chess move history app for Mac?
I would like to check various positions to see if I have reached them in the past. I play on lichess.org which lets you download your complete game history as a pgn. I was wondering if anyone knew of a program (or maybe site) that runs on Mac OSX that lets you check position history and shows how many times you have reached that position (and maybe shows what moves you played next).

I have ChessBase on Windows but was looking for a Mac alternative.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I believe the Scid vs PC and Xboard would do the job. They can both run on Mac.

---
Tags: analysis, database
---


# Question
Title: Only the king remains, but he is stuck, can't move
I played with my friend yesterday, and we reached a point when I cornered him from everywhere. I had a queen and a king, and he had only his king left, but he could not do any move because any move would be considered checkmate. So he told me it's a draw because it's a stalling position. Is that true?

# Answer
> 11 votes
If you mean he can't move his king anywhere because if he does his king will be in check, but none of your pieces are attacking him at the moment, and it's his turn, then yes, it's called a **stalemate** because he has nothing to play but his king isn't attacked by any one of your pieces, and this is a draw.

P.S. that is if none of his pieces are able to move, if he has another piece which he can play with it's not a stalemate. xD

# Answer
> 4 votes
When a player has no legal moves available and his/her King is not in check the game is a draw (stalemate).

Some think that this is illogical or even unjust.

They do have a point, but let me observe that if stalemate were considered a loss for the moveless player, all K+P/K endgames would be won by the stronger side. This may result in overcautious play in the opening and middlegame as a material advantage of one pawn would be much more sensible than it is now.

Sacrificing a pawn for the initiative would be a way riskier business.

Overall, declaring stalemate a win could result in a slower and less dynamic (less fun?) game.

# Answer
> 3 votes
In addition to AlainD's answer: Stalemate was treated a win for the player left with no moves in chess history, too. This rule was used in the British islands until the mid of 19th century.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The answer given by Captain\_Shepard is correct. In Chess, stalemate is a draw. However, the OP's confusion might well be justified as Chess is unusual in this regard. Many games have stalemate as a loss for the player who cannot move. For example, Chinese Chess or Xiangqi (which is based on the same precursor game as Chess and is therefore very similar) has stalemate as a loss.

EDIT:

Thanks to jnkappen's answer, I did a Google search and found this interesting Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#History\_of\_the\_stalemate\_rule

Like GM Larry Kaufman mentioned in that article, I am of the opinion that stalemate being a draw is illogical and should be a win for the player administering stalemate.

# Answer
> 0 votes
According to The Laws of Chess:

```
5.2.a The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal
move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in
‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game [...]

```

This is the situation you described.

---
Tags: endgame, stalemate
---


title: Chess engines as similar to A.I

text:
# Question
Title: Chess engines as similar to A.I
Are there any chess engines that can adapt and 'learn' how to play better with an opponent? One with certain system parameters that can be adjusted while playing so the computer can 'respond' better to a human player?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Learning to play better chess by itself is a part of reinforcement machine learning (temporal difference learning). A simple google will give you some academic papers. My recommended papers (that I've read myself):

While the programs are different. They share the similar idea:

The idea is like this:

1. Come up with an evaluation function that you think appropriate
2. Implement a search algorithm (mini-max, nega-max etc)
3. Initialise the weights in the evaluation function. The weights would be your `features`
4. Play a game against itself
5. Record the result of the game and compute the error.
6. Apply the following TD-Leaf equation to change the weights

7. Play more games until you believe your values have converged

The equation updates the weight vector by the gradient, scaled by a constant (learning rate). The errors would be the temporal difference (d(t)) in the equation. They would need to be added for all moves until the end of game, scaled by the distance from `t`. Please google `TD-Leaf` if you want to know more.

While there have been some serious attempts at applying the TD-Leaf algorithm, none of which was strong enough to compete with Komodo and Stockfish. I think that's because:

* Lack of determination. The authors wrote their TD-Leaf chess engines for their research. Once that was done, they moved on to something else, something much more **profitable** for them. For example, the NeuroChess program was written by a very well-known AI export. He works for Google and I think Google has more challenging task for him.
* Weak search algorithm
* Not challenging anymore. A human tuning chess engine can easily defeat the best grandmaster. Why would we waste time and resources to further improve it? Why not spend the money on `Go`, where the best human player has yet to be beaten?

Some remarks:

* While it's possible to train a model from random weights, we don't want to do this because it would lead to extremely long training times. We can give starting values with some human-knowledge, or bootstrapping (read the Giraffe paper for details).

---
Tags: engines, learning
---


title: Why can't I castle on Arena chess?

text:
# Question
Title: Why can't I castle on Arena chess?
I play chess a lot against Arena (the GUI thing),
but I can't seem to castle.
The requirements for castling are met, just the castling itself doesn't work. I'm on windows.

# Answer
> 4 votes
For the record (adapted from my comment above): as with other such interfaces, if you move the King to its target square, the corresponding Rook will automagically land on the right square to complete the Castling. (A move like Ke1-g1 or Ke8-c8 can only mean Castling. Usually the computer will refuse the move if Castling is illegal for some reason.)

---
Tags: castling, arena
---


# Question
Title: How to see average game length for specific chess opening (number of moves)?
How to see average game lenght for specific chess opening?

Is there some chess database which allow me to see specific opening game length?

For example:

* Sicilian defense (average length is: 80.5)
* Caro-Kann defense (average length is: 60.7)

I want to learn which opening lead to short, medium, long game.

It is easy to find white/black/draw statistics but hard to find length of games.

# Answer
Chessbase has a function "Opening Report" which gives average lenght of White wins/Black wins/draws Just setup che base position on the chessboard and right-click it
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, statistics, game-length
---


# Question
Title: Why is taking the e4 Pawn considered risky here?
```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.f4?!

```

Almost nobody takes the e4 Pawn with 8...b4, and then N or B takes e4. Is there a clear refutation by White, or is it simply considered "risky" play by Black? After all, he is taking a strong central pawn.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Sorry for the lack of a board here, I will learn how to paste boards here soon.

8.f4 b4 9.Na4 (Nce2 is reasonable too) Nxe4, one might ask, what has white got?

10. O-O and black has serious issues developing as the amazing line given by the comp (I wouldnt have seen this line) :

10...Be7 11. f5 e5 12.Bxf7+! Kxf7 13.Ne6 Kg8 ( Qd7 14.Qg4 wins material back, Bxe6 fxe6 Kxe6 Qg4+ is no good, Ke8 Qd5 wins material back with decisive effect.)

14.Qd5 and Qh5 g6 (h6 Kh7 Qf5- Qxe4 wins) Qf3 win back material.

The safest line that black can go for is 10..Nf6 imo, just retreating, but white has interesting play with 10.O-O Nf6 Qf3 d5 (what else?) 12.f5 (full throttle) e5 (what else?) 13.Re1 or 13.Bg5!? are interesting for white.

The lines go on and on, but white has very direct, brutal play with the pieces working with the f-pawn in some shape or form. Whether it works or not is another matter.

After all, f4 isnt the main line, O-O is. Diagrams below are me visualizing my lines stated above.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.f4?! b4 9.Na4 Nxe4 10. O-O Be7 11. f5 e5 12.Bxf7+! Kxf7 13.Ne6 Bxe6 14.fxe6 Kg8 15.Qd5

```

---

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.f4?! b4 9.Na4 Nxe4 10. O-O Nf6 11.Qf3 d5 12.f5 e5 13.Re1 e4!?

```

It's probably better it opt for something safe.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Instead of 9. Na4, there is the possibility of the counterattack 9. e5.

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, najdorf
---


# Question
Title: Can the King be attacked by a pinned piece?
A computer chess game does not permit moving the white King to d2 presumably because it's attacked by the black Knight which I suspect is correct, but the Knight can't actually attack that square because that would put it's King in check.

So, is the game correct? Is Kd2 illegal?

```
[FEN "8/8/4k3/8/4n3/8/8/3KQ3 w - - 0 5"]

```

# Answer
Kd2 is indeed illegal. You can think of it this way: normally Black can't move his knight because White would "capture his king", but if White were able to play Kd2 then Black would capture White's king before White got a chance to capture his.
> 10 votes

# Answer
The FIDE Laws of Chess say:

> 3.8 There are two different ways of moving the king: by moving to any adjoining square not attacked by one or more of the opponent’s pieces
> ...

---

> 3.9 The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.
> 9 votes

# Answer
It is possible not only for a pinned piece to block a king's motions, but also for a pinned piece to actively give check or even checkmate. For example:

```
[FEN "r/6bb/8/n/1k/2N/P3QB/K6r w - - 0 0"]

1. Be1 Bxc3+ 2. Qb2+ Nb3++

```

White's bishop blocks the check, pinning itself. Black's bishop pins itself when taking the knight, but simultaneously checks White. Note that White's bishop is pinned, so it can't take Black's bishop. White's Queen blocks check from the bishop, pinning itself, but also checking Black. Because Black's bishop is pinned, Black cannot take White's queen (and although White's queen is pinned, it could take Black's bishop next turn and Black would not be able to re-take). Black's knight, however, can deliver checkmate while blocking check and pinning itself in line with White's queen. Note that White's pawn cannot take Black's knight because the knight's last move pinned it.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Nope. It is illegal to move your King to a threatened square. Also, please see this related question:

Bizarre pin rule: pinned pieces do not attack

Cheers!
> 3 votes

# Answer
Kd2 is illegal not so much because the Knight *will* attack, but because the King *is* moving into check, which is illegal in and of itself, never mind the legality of the knight's move: Kd2 is just as illegal as Nxd2, because both mean that somebody put *themselves* in check, which you can't do.

Besides, you will never have an occasion when a piece *moves* to capture the king, as you propose with ... Nxd2, because there *is* no legal set of moves that gives a player the move while the opposing king is in check.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Yes, Kd2 is illegal. The check rules, as I understand it, say that the king can not move into check or move another piece such that the king would be in check (thus the basis for forks, pins, skewers). Kd2 would be illegal by the rules stated above. Also, the rules never account for the king being taken, so... Hope this helps.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, kings, check
---


# Question
Title: Dealing with Sénéchaud Countergambit in King’s Gambit
How would you try to refute the Sénéchaud Countergambit in King's Gambit?

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 g5

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
Full disclosure: I don't play the King's Gambit. My first thought (and note that I am NOT a master-level player) was 4. Nxg5 exf4 5. Nf3 (which, in and of itself, isn't sufficient to be an answer).

I decided to just do some Googling to try to learn more about this, and stumbled across analysis.cpuchess.com, which allowed a position to be analysed by various chess engines.

Here's what they gave me:

**Houdini**

> 4. Nxg5 h6 5. Qh5 Qf6 6. Nf3 Qxf4 7. Qxe5+ Qxe5 8. Nxe5 d6 9. Nf3 Nc6 10. b3 Nge7 11. Bb2 Rg8 12. d4 Bb4+ 13. c3 Ba5 14. Nbd2 b5 15. g4 Bxg4 16. Bxb5 O-O-O

**GarboChess JS**

> 4. Nxg5 Qe7 5. Bc4 exf4 6. Qh5 Nf6 7. Qxf7+ Qxf7 8. Bxf7+ Ke7 9. e5 Ng4

**Fruit**

Seemed to be locking up mid-analysis.

**Stockfish**

> 4. Nxg5 Nc6 5. Qh5 Qf6 6. Bc4 Nh6 7. Nc3 Qg6 8. Qxg6 hxg6 9. Nd5 Bb6 10. Bb3 d6 11. d3 f5 12. Rf1 Bd7 13. fxe5 dxe5 14. exf5 Nxf5

**Toga2**

> 4. Nxg5 Qe7 5. Nc3 exf4 6. Nf3 Bb4 7. e5 Bxc3 8. dxc3 d6 9. Qd5 Nc6 10. Bxf4 Nf6

**Critter**

> 4. Nxg5 exf4 5. Qh5 Qe7 6. Bc4 Nf6 7. Qxf7+ Qxf7 8. Bxf7+ Ke7 9. Bb3 h6 10. Nf3 Nxe4 11. d4 Bd6 12. O-O Re8 13. Ne5 Nc6 14. Rxf4 Ng5 15. h4 Nxe5 16. hxg5

**Observation**

What I found most amusing about this was that all of them (except Fruit, of course) suggested 4. Nxg5 as the best move... but that most went different directions afterwards; 4. ... Qe7 on GarboChess JS and Toga2 being the only commonality, and even they diverged almost immediately.

... which leads me to conclude that the answer to "how would you try to refute" is 4. Nxg5 followed by "tactics."

---
Tags: gambits, kings-gambit
---


# Question
Title: What is the best way to document and archive my past games?
I am looking for more sophisticated solutions for documenting, archiving and analysing my past games. Right now I have a folder filled with PGN files. What systems have proved to work well?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I would recommend you to use a game database software, as Scid, Scid vs PC, ChessX, ChessDB, Scid on the Go (Android), etc.

I use Scid for all of that (documenting, archiving and analysing) and it works really well.

---
Tags: learning, beginner, database
---


# Question
Title: How to play against the Noteboom variation?
In online games I sometimes have this happen:

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 e6 4.Nc3 dxc4

```

and Black plays the famous "Noteboom variation". I checked my database and I have in fact lost every single game as White where this variation happened. Usually Black just arranges his pieces nicely and pushes the a-pawn and b-pawn and I lose material due to pieces getting trapped in the corner, or having to give up pieces to stop the pawns promoting.

What is a promising way to meet this system for White?

Note: Of course, I could avoid the line with 4.e3 going into a normal Meran. But I often play quickly the first few moves of an internet game and carelessly make a natural developing move with the knight. It would be good to know how to recover from this.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In this variation, black is behind development after

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp3ppp/2p1p3/8/2pP4/2N2N2/PP2PPPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Bf4 Bb4 2. e3 Bxc3+ 3. bxc3 b5 4. a4 Nf6 5. axb5 cxb5 6. Rb1

```

White has more center control, and black will probably have a backward pawn if he tries to hang onto c4.

Another variation I like is

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp3ppp/2p1p3/8/2pP4/2N2N2/PP2PPPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e3 b5 2. b3 Bb4 3. Bb2 cxb3 4. Qxb3 Bxc3 5. Qxc3 Nf6 6. Bd3

```

which creates lots of attacking chances for white.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In order to avoid the sharp positions where black has the connected passed a- and b-pawns, white can switch to systems with g3. This is what white opted for in Nakamura-Ivanchuk and Giri-Caruana.

In the first game, Nakamura played 5.g3. If black replies with 5....Nf6, then the game transposes to a theoretical line that arises after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.g3 dxc4. Instead, Ivanchuk tried to postpone Nf6 and played 5....b5 6.Bg2 Bb7 7.Ne5 Qc8. However, it seems that Nakamura was able to develop a dangerous initiative.

In the second game, Giri first played 5.a4 and after 5....Bb4, he went for 6.g3, probably hoping for a good version of the 5.g3 variation.

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "8"]

      1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 e6 (3...Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.g3 dxc4) 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 (5.g3 Nf6) Bb4 6.g3

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
Without knowing your playing style, answering this question is difficult.

As a 2000 who plays this defense, the line I have the most trouble with is the Nd2 line.

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5 a4 Bb4 6 e3 b5 7, Bd2 a5 8 axb5 Bxc3 9 Bc3 cxb5 10 b3 Bb7 11 bxc4 b4 12 Bb2 Nf6 13 Bd3 Nbbd7 14 o-o o-o 15 Nd2 (or Bc2 followed by Nd3.) \["The Triangle System" by Sherbakov is a good reference book.\]

A good plan would be to switch to the Catalan after Black weakens the long diagonal.

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


# Question
Title: Moving pawns which are defending the king
Is f4 a good move here?

```
 [Title ""]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "r2qk1nr/pbp3pp/1p2p/4b/4P/2N/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. f4

```

On the one hand, many times you would move like this way to attack some pieces - sometimes to *f3* or to *f4*. On the other hand, I feel that I leave open my king.

What are the disadvantages/advantages of this move?

# Answer
> 5 votes
There are no advantages.

The really big disadvantage is that after: 1. f4 BxN 2. bxB QxQ 3. RxQ Bxe4 you are completely lost, a clear piece down with no compensation whereas after 1. Qh5+ Kf8 2. QxB you would have been a pawn up with a much better position.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Moving f2-f4 will make your King weaker since it opens g1-a7 diagonal as well as weakening control over squares e3 and g3. Advantage of making f2-f4 is that you increase control in center by controlling e5 square, obtain f4-f5 push and take g5 square into control for your Knights.

In your position:

```
 [Title ""]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "r2qk1nr/pbp3pp/1p2p/4b/4P/2N/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Qh5+

```

Qd1-h5+ is better, picking up the Bishop on e5.

Further, since black's King is weaker than yours due to missing f-pawn, there is no need for you to weaken your King. Instead, you should keep Queens on board and attack using your pieces.

---
Tags: tactics, defense
---


# Question
Title: Can a tournament allowed to run if all players are allowed to cheat?
I am interested to know whether money based online chess tournament would succeed if all players are allowed to cheat.

# Answer
> 1 votes
This concept is called advanced chess or freestyle chess.

There used to be an advances chess tournament in Leon already in the late nineties. Nowadays it has reverted to a normal rapid tournament.

And there have been freestyle tournaments online (for money), first organised by chessbase and nowadays apparently continued by Infinity Chess.

---
Tags: online-chess
---


title: Why go for stalemate here?

text:
# Question
Title: Why go for stalemate here?
In a Daily Puzzle of the Chess.com app, playing as white the solution to the puzzle was as follows:

```
 [Title ""]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "8/p1Q3bk/P2N2p1/5p1p/7P/6q1/8/7K w - - 0 1"]

 1. Qxg7 Kxg7 2.Nxf5+ gxf5

```

If I'm not wrong this is stalemate and therefore a tie. Isn't there a better solution?

# Answer
Yes, you're right that this is a draw because of stalemate. There is no better solution; White is two pawns behind, his king is exposed, he can't profit from the pin on the bishop and he can't safely win the a7 pawn. Without this tactic, black could just push his f-pawn towards victory.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, problems, stalemate
---


title: Chess Engines and Elo Ratings

text:
# Question
Title: Chess Engines and Elo Ratings
I don't know if this question has already been asked. Pardon me if it was.

1. What is the difference between a human player of approximately 1600 ELO rating and a competent chess engine like Stockfish 7 set to ELO 1600 (in Fritz you have such an option under Training \> Rated Game)?

\[Don't know if my second question is particularly connected to the first, but here it is:\]

2. Is it possible to determine the ratings of players by the PGNs of their games? I'd rather play with a computer and wanted to know what my Elo is. Is it possible through Fritz or any software?

\[This is more of a side question\]

3. Is there any site that explains what is Elo in lucid terms?

# Answer
> 2 votes
> 1. What is the difference between a human player of approximately 1600 ELO rating and a competent chess engine like Stockfish 7 set to ELO 1600 ?

The main difference is in the way each chooses their moves.

The human player will predominantly use pattern recognition combined with some form of plan recall. So, I recognize that this position is winning for white and this is the winning plan. This might involve specific moves for a tactical plan and more general aims for a strategic one.

The computer will predominantly use brute force calculation with an element of pattern recognition for position evaluation

> 2. Is it possible to determine the ratings of players with the pgns of their games?

In theory, yes. Both FIDE and certain online chess providers have looked at tools for detecting cheating which essentially do this although without producing a rating. They look at moves which are not opening book / standard theory moves and calculate the percentage of moves which are engine 1st, 2nd, 3rd choices etc. In principle this work could be extended to develop a way of rating pgns but it would be a lot of hard work.

> I'd play with the computer and wanted to know what is my ELO. Is it possible through Fritz or any software?

No. Too much work to develop such a system for too little reward.

> 3. Is there any site that explains what is ELO in lucid terms?

Since you appear to know what ELO is (an internationally recognized rating system) presumably what you are really asking is whether there exist explanations for the mathematics and statistics behind ELO.

The killer part of your question is "in *lucid* terms". Of course such explanations exist which are lucid for mathematical and statistical experts but just as clearly if you lack the expertise they will not be lucid for you.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I think you should ask three questions at chess.stackexchange.com instead of asking three times in a single question

> What is the difference between a human player of approximately 1600 ELO rating and a competent chess engine like Stockfish 7 set to ELO 1600 (in Fritz you have such an option under Training \> Rated Game)?

I don't know about this setting. I think the only way to weaken Stockfish is limiting its search depth, so I guess that's what Fritz does, but I don't know.

Maybe this question and Student T reply can help you.

> Is it possible to determine the ratings of players with the PGNs of their games? Rather, I'd play with the computer and wanted to know what is my ELO. Is it possible through Fritz or any software?

There have been several attempts to calculate player's ELO from the difference between the played moves and the best moves (as calculated by a chess engine). There's an obvious correlation between both values. You can find some information at Computers choose: who was the strongest player?, Computer analysis of world champions or Determining the Strength of Chess Players Based on Actual Play

> Is there any site that explains what is ELO in lucid terms?

The Wikipedia article on Elo Rating System is rather good. There's an interesting statistical studio by Sonas The Sonas Rating Formula – Better than Elo?

---
Tags: engines, elo
---


# Question
Title: What are quick and easy ways to learn, and what should i focus on
I've always loved chess, but never was really serieus about it. Lately I've picked up trying to get better and bringing up my game to a new level. I started playing online a lot and currently watching videos on chess on daily base.

Chess.com is providing the needed lessons on all the basic things but as a beginner there is so much stuff to learn.

What should a beginner focus on (think about openings, end games, ways to mate, etc.)

Also I was wondering if anyone an easy way to learn the chess notations, I get how the squares are lined up and everything but I need practice (maybe software or a paper method anyone knows of).

# Answer
A beginner should focus on playing games, solving tactic puzzles and playing through annotated master games.

If you play through master games with a real board instead of at the computer, you will quickly learn the notation as well.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Pretty much what has already been said. At this stage games are pretty much always decided by blunders. Work on thinking 3-ply (half-moves) ahead when considering a move (so you move, opponent moves, you move - what is your evaluation of the resulting position).

Tactics, learn the different motifs and spend time on puzzles. I'd focus on a site like http://chesstempo.com that has the ability to work on problems in a non-timed mode. There are lots of good books that introduce people to tactics:

* *Learn Chess Tactics* by John Nunn
* *Chess Tactics for Kids* by Murray Chandler

Learn mating patterns:

* *The Art of the Checkmate* by Renaud and Kahn
* *How to Beat Your Dad at Chess* by Murray Chandler

A good book that teaches endgames based on the reader's playing strength is *Silman's Complete Endgame Course* by Jeremy Silman. It starts out with the basics and works it way up through different sections until it is teaching you what IM Silman thinks a national master needs to know.

A good starting collection of master games to play through is *Logical Chess: Move by Move* by Irving Chernev. In addition to playing through annotated master games, trying to play guess-the-move with master games is useful as well. Pick a player (winning side typically), play through the 1st 10 moves or so, then cover it up and start trying to figure out the move to play.

Look up Dan Heisman and possibly read some of his articles on improvement. I'm not sure if they are freely available online any longer at http://chesscafe.com, but there is a collection of them in the book *A Guide to Chess Improvement: The Best Of Novice Nook*.

Most important of all play slow time control games, record your moves, and afterwards analyze your games without the assistance of a chess engine. Try to figure out where you made mistakes, where you could have made a better move, and do the same for your opponent.

Don't try to learn everything at once. Just focus on improving a certain aspect of your game, then move on to another area.
> 3 votes

# Answer
You are already playing online and watching chess videos, so you know how the pieces move, probably have a good idea about their relative strengths and values and are beginning to get an idea of how to co-ordinate your moves to try and achieve mini-plans.

> What should a beginner focus on (Think about openings, end games, ways to mate ETC.)

Definitely the first thing to learn is ways to mate. If you don't know how to finish your opponent off then you can only win if your opponent resigns or by luck. Start with Queen and King versus King, then 2 Rooks + King versus King, then one Rook + King versus King, then 2 Bishops + King versus King.

Next I would spend some time learning a couple of King Pawn openings, something like Ruy Lopez or 4 Knights for the first one just to learn about developing the pieces and then the Kings Gambit to learn about the fun of just attacking your opponent!

The third thing I would do is study tactics and combinations. Learn about forks, pins, skewers, overloading defenders, stuff like that. The best way to do that is to work from a book with lots of combinations.

> Also I was wondering if anyone an easy way to learn the chess notations, i get how the squares are lined up and everything but i need practice(maybe software or a paper method anyone knows of).

You are definitely going to need this at an early stage because the other learning stuff is going to come from reading books.

One possible way to start is to find questions and answers in this forum where extracts from games, whole games, example moves and solutions are given. These are given in diagrams which play out the moves which are written written alongside. Here is one recent example - Why does the Hyper Accelerated Dragon avoid the Rossolimo?.

By all means use the autoplay features to scroll through the moves but then set up the position on your board with your pieces and physically play through the moves. The position on your board when you have finished should match the position on the screen board after you have scrolled through the moves. If it doesn't you can scroll back through the moves and undo the moves on your board to see where you went wrong.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I liked learning and playing in chess24.com It is a place to see others games also. One way to learn is to see others games and tactics which they have applied.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Tactics teach position: the answer is to learn tactics.

Try these!
> -1 votes

---
Tags: learning, beginner
---


# Question
Title: What are the mistakes that I have done in the following game?
I am a begginer and I have a rating of about 1000 Elo. I played a game against stockfish 5 but I lost the game. I know that stockfish is a very strong engine but I played against it to learn more. This is the game:

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "Kartikay"]
[Date "2015.03.08"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kumar Kartikay"]
[Black "Stockfish_14053109_x64_modern"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "2200"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Opening "French"]
[Time "11:59:28"]
[Variation "Exchange, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5"]
[WhiteElo "880"]
[TimeControl "900"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "44"]
[WhiteType "human"]
[BlackType "program"]

1. e4 e6 {(e6 Nc3 d5 d4 Bb4 exd5 exd5 Bd3 Nf6 a3 Bxc3+ bxc3 0-0 Ne2 Nc6 0-0
Re8 Bf4 h6 c4 g5 Be3 Qe7 Nc3 Be6) -0.26/21 21} 2. d4 d5 {(d5 Nc3 Bb4 exd5
exd5 Bd3 c5 dxc5 Nf6 Nf3 0-0 0-0 Bxc5 a3 Nc6 Bf4 Re8 Re1 Rxe1+ Qxe1 Ng4
Bg3) -0.17/21 8} 3. exd5 exd5 {(exd5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3 Bd6 0-0 0-0 c3 Re8 Bg5
Nbd7 Nbd2 c6 Qb3 h6 Bxf6 Nxf6) -0.09/20 13} 4. Qe2+ Be7 {(Be7 Bg5 Nd7 Nc3
Ngf6 Qd2 h6 Bf4 Ne4 Nxe4 dxe4 0-0-0 Nf6 Kb1 0-0 Bc4 Nd5 Ne2 Be6 Bb3 c6 Rhe1
Nxf4 Nxf4) +0.34/22 12} 5. Bg5 Nd7 {(Nd7 Nc3 Ngf6 Qd2 h6 Bf4 0-0 Bd3 c5
Nge2 c4 Bf5 Nc5 Bxc8 Nce4 Nxe4 Nxe4 Qe3 Rxc8 0-0 Re8 f3 Nf6 c3 Bd6 Be5)
+0.31/22 18} 6. Bxe7 Nxe7 {(Nxe7 Nc3 0-0 0-0-0 Re8 Qd2 Nf6 Kb1 Nf5 h3 Ne4
Nxe4 dxe4 g4 Nd6 Qf4 b6 Ne2 a5 Bg2 Ba6 Nc3 Bb7 h4 f6 g5) +0.20/23 14} 7.
Nc3 O-O {(0-0 0-0-0 Re8 Qd2 Nf6 Bd3 Bf5 Kb1 Qd7 Nge2 Bxd3 Qxd3 Nf5 Rhe1 c6)
+0.26/23 8} 8. O-O-O Nf6 {(Nf6 Qd2 c6 Re1 b5 f3 Nf5 g4 Nd6 Kb1 a5 h4 Re8
Rxe8+ Qxe8 Bd3 b4 Na4 Ba6 Bxa6 Rxa6 Ne2 Ra8) +0.29/22 14} 9. Nf3 Re8 {(Re8
h3 c6 Qd2 Ne4 Nxe4 dxe4 Ne5 Nd5 Bc4 Be6 Kb1 a5 Bxd5 Qxd5 c4 Qd6 Qc2 a4 a3
f6 Ng4 b5 Ne3 bxc4 Nxc4) +0.51/21 16} 10. Qd2 Ne4 {(Ne4 Nxe4 dxe4 Ne5 Be6
Kb1 c6 Bc4 Nd5 Bxd5 cxd5 h3 a5 f3 a4 fxe4 f6 Ng4 Bxg4 hxg4 Rxe4 Rde1 Rxg4
c3 Re4) +0.39/22 24} 11. Nxe4 dxe4 {(dxe4 Ne5 Be6 Kb1 c6 Bc4 Nd5 Bxd5 cxd5
h3 a5 Rhe1 f6 Ng4 b5 f3 exf3 gxf3 Rc8 Rg1 b4 Rde1 Rc7 Qd3 Qe7 f4) +0.39/24
8} 12. Ne5 Be6 {(Be6 Kb1 c6 Bc4 Nd5 Bxd5 cxd5 h3 a5 Rhe1 Qd6 Ng4 b5 f3 Bxg4
hxg4 b4 fxe4 dxe4 Qe3 Rac8 d5) +0.41/22 19} 13. c3 Bxa2 {(Bxa2 Re1 Nd5 g3
c6 Qc2 f6 Nc4 b5 Ne3 Qa5 h4 Rad8 Nxd5 Bxd5 Bg2 f5 b4 Qa3+ Qb2 Qa4 Qc2 Qa6
Qb2 h6 Bh3 e3 Rhf1) +1.43/21 20} 14. Qe3 f6 {(f6 Bc4+ Bxc4 Nxc4 b5 Na5 Qd5
Qe2 Rab8 b4 Qe6 Qd2 Nd5 Rde1 Rb6 Kb2 e3 fxe3 Nxe3 h4 f5) +1.60/21 22} 15.
Nc4 b5 {(b5 Na5 Bd5 b4 a6 Kb2 Qd6 Qg3 Qd7 Be2 Bf7 Ra1 Nf5 Bg4 Nxg3 Bxd7
Nxh1 Bxe8 Rxe8 Rxh1 e3 fxe3 Rxe3) +1.85/21 26} 16. Nd2 Nd5 {(Nd5 Qh3 b4 c4
e3 fxe3 Nxe3 Bd3 g6 Qh4 Nxd1 Rxd1 f5 Qxd8 Rexd8 d5 a5 Nf3 a4 Nd4 a3 Re1 Re8
Rxe8+ Rxe8 bxa3 bxa3 Nb5 Bb3 Nxa3) +2.64/24 14} 17. Qg3 e3 {(e3 fxe3 Rxe3
Qf2 Qe7 Nf3 c5 dxc5 Qxc5 Qc2 Nxc3 Bd3 Ne2+ Bxe2 Qxc2+ Kxc2 Rxe2+ Rd2 Rc8+
Kd3 Bc4+ Kd4 Rd8+ Kc3 Rdxd2 Nxd2 Bd5 Ra1 Rxg2 h4) +2.94/23 36} 18. fxe3
Rxe3 {(Rxe3 Qf2 Qe7 Nf3 c5 dxc5 Qxc5 Rd3 b4 Rxe3 Nxe3 Bd3 Rd8 Nd4 Nd5 Qf5
g6 Qe6+ Kh8 Qf7 bxc3 Qg7+ Kxg7 Ne6+ Kf7 Nxc5 Nf4 Rd1 Rd5 g3 Nxd3+ Nxd3 Bb3)
+2.72/24 20} 19. Qf2 Qe7 {(Qe7 Nf3 c5 dxc5 Qxc5 h3 Rc8) +2.94/24 7} 20.
Bxb5 Rxc3+ {(Rxc3+ bxc3 Qa3+ Kc2 Qxc3+) +M3/120 0} 21. bxc3 Qa3+ {(Qa3+ Kc2
Qxc3+) +M2/120 0} 22. Kc2 Qxc3# {(Qxc3+) +M1/120 0} 0-1

```

So I want to learn from my mistakes so please tell me how can I improve my game.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Main errorrs :

* 4.Qe2? This prevents you to develop your bishop and eventually you had to move your Qeueen out of the way in move 10.Qd2
* 13.c3? The pawn on d4 was under no immediate attack , you lost your a2 pawn of your castle (weakening your queenside and eventually getting attacked).
* 20.Bb5 Do not get greedy for pawns when your king is coming under attack due to weak queenside pawn structure .

Overall , the weak Queen move in the start over the developing 4.Be3 made the difference . Eventually the queen had to be moved away and out of the gameplay .

Good luck !

# Answer
> 6 votes
The first mistake you made was playing against Stockfish. Modern engines are so strong (and have been ever since at least Fritz 5!) that you learn *nothing* from playing them. They'll punish all your tactical mistakes (and at 1000 Elo you make plenty), but you'd get much more useful tactics training out of just doing exercises.

If you want to improve your game you should seek out human opponents somewhat above your level (100-200 Elo points) instead.

# Answer
> 2 votes
All the big errors have been mentioned already, but I'd add that 5. Bxe7 is questionable. Why exchange? In general, it's good to keep up tension until you can resolve it favorably or can force your opponent to resolve it unfavorably.

# Answer
> 1 votes
3. exd5

You don't have a lead in development so opening the centre is not advantageous.

When you castled Queenside he followed standard procedure and used a pawn storm but of course it was tremendous to see how it was done so thanks for posting!

Being a beginner myself I can't say too much more but I believe move 3 was your first mistake and castling Queenside was your second.

(Can I quickly ask how you post games with comments in the player?)

---
Tags: learning, stockfish, beginner
---


title: Applying Techniques in Tutorials

text:
# Question
Title: Applying Techniques in Tutorials
To preface, I've played chess a while but am just beginning to take it seriously in regards to the studying past games and different techniques. Bear with me as my question is a bit conceptual...

The big question I have is how to use these techniques correctly in a real world situation. Whenever you watch or read about certain types of games to play, the person teaches in a way that you just 'assume' the other person is going to make a certain move, then you make this move, etc etc. Obviously this is not realistic so I'm wondering if that means that the best players just absorb all of these different situations and adapt accordingly?

This seems improbable to me because of the near infinite possible ways a game can be played. Do the greats generally play the same way with slightly nuanced differences? How can one 'assume' what the other player is doing?

Knowing a little history, I believe it was game 3 of the Spassky/Fisher matches where Fisher played way outside of the box...did this throw Spassky off because he was so used to seeing certain moves?

I know I have a couple questions here but in general I'm just trying to find the best way to use tutorials and past matches in the real world.

Thanks!

# Answer
It depends on what exactly the tutorial is trying to teach you.

If it is an opening tutorial, say about the Italian game, then obviously after 1.e4 black has any number of responses and you'll have to find a tutorial for each and every one of them.

If the tutorial teaches you about certain strategic situations, then only the sensible responses will be examined, and what is sensible is something you'll learn by being exposed to many different positions and moves. See: How do players "see" several moves ahead?

If the tutorial touches upon a tactical position, for example a mating attack, then it makes a lot of sense for you to try to find the right way to continue if the opponent had made a different move. It'll probably have some easy refutation and you'll learn a lot by trying to find it by yourself.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I also think it depends a lot of what the tutorial is teaching you. If, for example, it is trying to teach the concept of minority attack a good lesson/tutorial will explain when is reasonable to think of starting a minority attack, will explain how to do it (conceptually) and will give examples. The same stands for preventing your opponent's plan. Then go over many games and try to understand when and how different concepts are applied. It will eventually stick to the brain, maybe subconsciously at the beginning, then you will start to recognize patterns.

Applying the concept in real life games is a different matter and I think it starts with correct evaluation of the position. Many times, the evaluation and the lines are guided by the opening you play, the pawn structure resulting in that opening, etc.

Don't worry, you are not the only one struggling to find the correct plan over the board :) I'm also very interested to other answers to this questions. Studying one concept is one thing, knowing when to apply it and having the correct technique to do so is a totally different thing.

As for tactics, I think is a lot about patterns recognition here. There are many websites that allow you to practice tactics online: chess.com, chess tempo, lichess, chess24, etc
> 2 votes

# Answer
The best way to use chess tutorials is to not watch too many of them.

If you want to do 500 chess puzzles in 3 hours then do it: but don't try and do it every day as you will forget that it's a game that does not depend on brute calculative ability.

The ideas are what is important: a combination is a combination of ideas thus watching too many tutorials mean you forget what you learnt at the beginning.

It's called being selective and being over-enthusiastic is a common amatuers mistake that I'm still making.

The best advice I ever got was not to try and play too perfectly.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, theory
---


title: Judit Polgar is too famous perhaps?

text:
# Question
Title: Judit Polgar is too famous perhaps?
It's often said that Judit Polgar can't play with the black pieces. Is this true for any identifiable reason or is it fair to say such commentary is simply jealous sniping.

# Answer
> It's often said that Judit Polgar can't play with the black pieces.

I have never heard this.

I just looked her up on MegaBase and her performance rating as White was 2677 and as Black was 2610, which is a pretty normal difference of 67 points. For comparison, Kasparov's performance rating as White was 2809 and as Black was 2725, a difference of 84 points, and Carlsen's performance rating as White has been 2748 and as Black has been 2684, a difference of 64 points.

> Is this true for any identifiable reason

No.

> or is it fair to say such commentary is simply jealous sniping.

I imagine so.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: psychology
---


title: Chess helps academic performance?

text:
# Question
Title: Chess helps academic performance?
Is there a study that tries to show that chess helps academic performance? How does chess help our academic performance? If any? Does playing chess make us smarter at school?

# Answer
Start here: http://psmcd.net/otherfiles/BenefitsOfChessInEdScreen2.pdf

There are a number of reasons. Probably the most prosaic is that the brain is like every other muscle in your body, the more you use it the stronger it gets. Add to that the fact that chess gives you practice at breaking down a large goal into achievable steps (going from "Checkmate my opponent" to "First I need to get my pieces in position to attack, then I ...") and spatial reasoning ("A Bishop there will prevent his knight from attacking me here"). Add in teaching just a bit of empathy ("what move would I make if I were in my opponent's position") and it's a solid win all the way around.

The evidence shows that chess definitely improves performance in school. And recent research in Neuroplasticity indicates that learning chess can help an old brain stay limber longer, so there's even proven benefits for us Old Pharts(tm).
> 3 votes

# Answer
Unfortunately most (if not all) of the studies regarding chess and academic achievement are tangled up with a variety of confounds. This means that a conclusion that chess can affect academic achievement cannot be offered. It would be 'unscientific'.

One of the biggest problems is self-selection: Do people start playing chess because they are great academic achievers or do people who start playing chess later on become great academic achievers? This is often the biggest criticism of chess studies.

Such a problem is hard to solve in a study due to ethical and practical reasons. Until that can be done, the correct answer to this question is we do not know for sure.

Of course, there are plenty of indications that this statement could be true. Popular culture and popular psychology believe it to be true. Common sense is screaming out it is true. Maybe one day, an outstanding study will show us it is true. Until then, while I highly recommend chess as a practice for many reasons, it would be wrong to expect that because you play chess you will automatically perform better in school. Make sure you keep doing the other bits!

CEO Chessable & very soon MSc Psychology of Education (BPS)
> 3 votes

# Answer
The utility of chess in helping academic performance has been well documented. A google search will provide you with a lot of studies. Several studies, particularly for children in elementary schools, show that supplementary time spent in chess improves academic performance overall. I've even read an article that cites a study which replaced supplementary math lectures with chess instead. The surprising result was that the young students with the chess did better at math than those with the math. Though I would imagine that this could only be true for children. I'm would guess that for high school or college students, an extra hour of calculus will help much more than an hour of playing chess. Chess helps improve children's analytical, critical thinking, and visualization skills. It also may improve focus. My opinion is that chess(which is just speculation), improves the above listed skills, but to a certain extent. By adulthood, I believe that those skills have already been developed by other means and therefore chess is not dramatically useful for adults. Something else may be said of for elders. So I would say that chess is a useful tool for elementary school, middle school, and maybe highschool. but I am skeptical of its usefulness the higher we go in education.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: psychology
---


title: Computers in correspondence chess

text:
# Question
Title: Computers in correspondence chess
In competitive correspondence chess, can humans win at all against computers? Do humans contribute at all to the game?

Provided that it is allowed by the rules, I fail to see how it is not just testing who has the best computer or the best computer program. In this scenario, the players would just be an interface, or not even that, since the computer can also send a move through the internet to the opponent.

# Answer
> 10 votes
I must disagree completely with the above answer. In the correspondence tournaments that I have participated in using a computer was considered cheating and if you were the tournament winner you had to do an analysis of one of your winning games, chosen by the tournament directors, to prove that you knew what you were talking about.

Second the computers main advantage against human players is their speed. A computer calculates thousand upon thousands of instructions per second and is able to analyse thousand of possible moves on each of its turns. However the computer has no true intelligence, which a human player does. The computer program Hydra was built to completely dominate the chess world and it did in fact beat every other chess program in the the world and has never been beaten by a human over-the-board. However it was beaten by a correspondence player in two games and drew their third game. I have been unable to find if the player consulted a computer or not, but as was pointed out in the discussions of the games on www.chessgames.com the player, correspondence chess International Grandmaster Arno Nickel, wasn't simply following another program since Hydra could beat all other programs as the time.

To say that unaided humans have no chance at all as though it were an obvious given is simply wrong. Take away the time constraints, have a motivated skilled correspondence player and there is a strong chance that the player will still win.

Hydra ran on a specially designed system that spread the processing required out over a network and is the only chess engine that would have a chance against the correspondence world champions if they were not constrained by time controls.

# Answer
> 9 votes
As others have noted, in international correspondence play, conducted under the auspices of ICCF, computers are allowed. Correspondence chess has been an interesting battleground for this debate because it has been stated above, the primary strength of the computer is brute force calculation and speed. When Botvinnik was first attempting to design a chess computer program, he was hoping to develop a true AI. Instead, modern computers win because they simply can calculate many more possibilities and pathways than a human could in a given amount of time. A human might miss the best continuation simply because he or she doesn't have adequate time to analyze it. Correspondence chess solves this issue because the human has considerably more time to analyze, whereas the computer doesn't really benefit from being able to examine the same position for several days. Interestingly, I should point out that there is quite a lot of evidence supporting the argument that humans contribute greatly to overall performance.

First, back in 2005, Arno Nickel, one of the strongest correspondence chess players in the world, played a four-game match with Hydra, which at the time was arguably the strongest chess-playing supercomputer in the world. Nickel was allowed to use a PC and chess software that he had bought off the shelf, similar to what he would use in an ICCF tournament. In a straight-up match between Hydra and the basic PC software, Hydra would have won every game. In the actual match, the match ended early because Nickel crushed Hydra 2.5-0.5 (two wins and one draw for Nickel). In other words, the combination of man and weak machine was too much for the best super-computer on the planet.

Second, there is a variant of chess called Centaur chess. Centaur chess involves a human-computer team. Humans make the move, taking into account analysis by the computer. At first glance, one would expect that this is simply a matter of who has the best computer software (and many of the players have developed their own chess programs). However, Centaur tournaments allow participation not just by human-computer teams, but by stand-alone computers without human assistance, and usually about half the participants are such stand-alone computers. To my knowledge, every one of these tournaments has been won by a centaur, i.e. the human-computer teams always beat the computers.

So, while it is true that the average human player would have little chance against an equal human playing with a computer, it is also true that computers have little chance playing against an equal computer playing with a human. All of which suggests that humans still contribute to the game, even when computers are involved.

# Answer
> 8 votes
In competitive correspondence chess everybody uses the strongest computer they can get, but there are still consistent differences in strength between different players.

Computers are strong, but they're nowhere near perfect. They're extremely good in positions where calculation is the primary factor but not that good in endgames and positional play. Good correspondence players know which computer lines to trust and how to direct the computer to the critical lines.

Unassisted humans have no chance at all, of course.

---
Tags: engines, correspondence-chess
---


# Question
Title: Am i re-entering a slump, or just my bad luck?
Last 2 hours was one of my most embarrassing games ever.

Yesterday I played against a chess club member and won 3-0, however the last 2 hours is so sad I lost for 3-0, all surrenders and no end-game.

Then another guy came up and challenged, he played 1. e4 c5 I know they don't have any knowledge of Sicilian nevertheless dragon, so I played with the variation of accelerated dragon and while being so unaware I lost with scholar's mate 4.Qxd7#.

Don't know what just happened to me back then, however one of my excuses was "My stomach is empty" I don't know if I'm making an excuse or not, but certainly I know there's some reason since a similar problem occurred to me when I'm learning chess.

Am i re-entering a slump, or just my bad luck?

# Answer
I doubt it was luck OR a slump. I think that you were simply too exhausted from your previous games and might have been playing too fast or not being as careful with your pieces
> 1 votes

# Answer
You do not mention time controls, psychologically speaking, that would make a big difference. I find that the faster the time control, the more likely something silly like this happens to me. I usually slow down, and play slower time controls in order to re-compose myself.

Hope this helps!
> 0 votes

---
Tags: sicilian-defense, psychology, losing
---


# Question
Title: Can't seem to get back to winning consistently
I’ve been in a big time slump lately. I play a lot of chess on the chess.com platform. I am sure that you all know the platform. My question is this: How does someone get out of a slump? I am losing to players I shouldn't be losing to. Do I just need to get my mind right?

# Answer
How's it going? Any improvement yet? A slump could be as a result of a lack of concentration amongst other things. Maybe this post can help you out - http://www.chessfiles.com/chessfiles-blog/oh-man-am-i-in-a-slump-again
> 2 votes

# Answer
I think you have hit the nail on the head with "Do I just need to get my mind Right?"

For many years I had very inconsistent form, I would try very hard and work on my game frequently, I saw gradual improvement but yet I would still find myself losing to players I really shouldn't...

Chess is a game which will never be played perfectly (not by any human), every game is riddled with mistakes from World Champion to absolute beginner, as players we tend to focus only on the bad things we do, "I just blundered a piece stupidly" or "I missed a simple tactic" rather than thinking about the deeper reasons for our mistake, oversights and tactical errors almost always occur when you don't understand the type of position you're playing or spending enough time to appreciate the finer points in the structure!

To play yourself into form, (or get out of bad form), you should spend a little more time getting to the bottom of why you've made the mistakes in the games you truly believe you should be winning!

Here is an article I wrote on my own improvement a year or so ago: If it looks interesting, play it!
> 9 votes

# Answer
Slumps such as this happen to me often. **It's extremely frustrating isn't it?**

It is very similar to tilting in say poker. **When this happens to me in chess, I realise I have started playing for rating**, akin to when you chase your losses in poker. Rating, not the enjoyment of chess, becomes my main and sole goal. When this happens, it is easy to start letting emotion affect your game. Then your rating goes down and down. Your game is no longer your best game. It is your C game or even your D game!

If this is happening to you, take a step back. Realise that you are playing chess because you enjoy it and not because of your rating. **Paradoxically, this is how your rating will return to you.** You will start playing your A game again and it will be but a matter of time before you get your rating back.

Good luck!
> 3 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, psychology, losing
---


# Question
Title: Will there be any anti-cheating measures that affect the broadcast in the Candidates tournament?
In the current Women World Championship the games are transmitted with a delay to avoid cheating. Searching if something similar will happen for the Candidates tournament I could just found the information that the games will be only be available in the official webpage.

Is it going to be any delay or any other anti-cheating measure that affects the broadcasting of the games applied in the Candidates?

# Answer
> 2 votes
> Is it going to be any delay or any other anti-cheating measure that affects the broadcasting of the games applied in the Candidates?

It is mostly Agon protecting their commercial rights to the event.

They forbid rebroadcasting and require users / viewers to login and click agreement to a complicated piece of lawyer-speak which is unintelligible to normal people.

Being cynical I expect any delay for other organizations covering the event will come from one of their members subscribing and then playing the moves on a chessboard in front of him so somebody else can broadcast them.

There is no copyright on chess moves or games, only on commentary.

---
Tags: cheating, candidates
---


# Question
Title: How do you use Fritztrainer DVD with Fritz 15?
I recently just got The Modern Grand Prix Attack Fritztrainer DVD, and I only have Fritz 15. I put in the activation code and can see the video, but the problem is that the chess board next to the video doesn't move. Hence, I can't see the pieces move when the IM goes over the games and variations. When I remove the DVD and put in the Fritz 15 disc, Fritz 15 works, but the Fritztrainer isn't there anymore. I couldn't find any customer service phone number. How do I get the Fritztrainer to work?

# Answer
> 2 votes
The Chessbase support site describes the process of viewing chess media files (or, what many call Fritz Trainer videos) as follows:

> If you have the lecture on a CD or DVD, \[...\] then you simply open a file using "File – Open – Chess Media File". The program will open a chess media window and you can sit back and watch the game.

Here is a screencap of my doing this process for the Fritz Trainer, Fit for the French by GM Viktor Bologan:

Note that very often the first video in a Fritz Trainer will be just the GM talking and giving you an overview. Then, you won't see any pieces moving (e.g., GM Garry Kasparov on the Queen's Gambit rapidly discusses lines without showing them on the board).

Finally, if you're opening the video files using these instructions and they don't show pieces moving when they're supposed to, you may have gotten your files from a disreputable source that has stripped them of their proprietary Chessbase metadata. In that case, you'll want to try to get a refund or download the Fritz Trainer from Chessbase.

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: Which free chess (learning) programme would you recommend?
I sadly do not have the time for a paid engagement regarding chess, yet I would like to use a good (learning) programme in my spare time.

I used an old programme from my grandfather, but it doesn't work on the new OS anymore. Any suggestions?

# Answer
Take a look at Lucas Chess.

http://www-lucaschess.rhcloud.com

From its web:

**Play:** The program has 21 engines prepared to play from the start, and with very different levels, from 1300 to 3000 elo.

**Train:** You have an extensive list of trainings with which to try to improve your chess:

* Training positions
* Play like a grandmaster
* Training mates

**Compete:** In Lucas Chess there are several competitions, and in two of them you can publish the results.
> 8 votes

# Answer
In my opinion the very best way to learn chess is to play random opponents and learn via your mistakes. I've been playing chess on several iOS apps for a few months, but I've found that playing real people is the best because you can plan your moves and strike when they do not see the plan. Playing a computer is usually too easy, or too hard depending on the settings you choose. The computer will not make natural mistakes, but rather purposeful mistakes based on the difficulty level. As you play against other people, you will get better if you pay attention. You just have to play dozens of games to build an elementary style. With time and practice you'll be able to predict what your opponent is planning and make your moves and plan fit with that in mind. I simply use the following app, and play when I have time: The ads are annoying but I'm not in a race to play so I don't mind....

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/chess-with-friends-free/id295436227?mt=8
> 2 votes

# Answer
Firstly you can try to use a compatibility setting which is a sure feature in the newer version of the windows. Secondly- I would recommend using http://www.chess.com if you have access to internet in your spare time. Also you can try using Chessmaster, a popular software. For trial version you can go to the following link: http://chessmaster-10th-edition.en.softonic.com/
> 1 votes

# Answer
I still love shredder chess, it's powerful and I'm sure I read somewhere that Carlsen recommended it.
> -1 votes

# Answer
ChessHero at http://innokuo.altervista.org/chesshero.html is a free tool, for windows only, which allows you to load a PGN or FEN to test your play. (So you don't random positions, i suggest a FEN such at Reinfeld 1001.) ChessTempo is adjusted to your level but is only available online. There are many free videos online or downloadable. There are many free chess playing programs you can download.

To be more specific, I would need to know which OS you have, your current level, how much time you want to invect, etc.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: learning, software
---


# Question
Title: Who wins in the game "knight" if both players play optimal?
The rules of "knight" : Player 1 puts a knight on some square. Then the players, beginning with Player 2, alternately move the knight. The knight cannot be moved to a square already visited, including the starting square. The player, who cannot move the knight anymore, loses.

Which player has a winning strategy ?

# Answer
In my answer to the same question over on math.stackexchange, I discussed general m by n boards. Here I will just give a winning strategy for Player 2 on the ordinary 8 by 8 chessboard. It's based on the following pairing of squares:

a1c2, b1d2, c1a2, d1b2, e1g2, f1h2, g1e2, h1f2,
a3c4, b3d4, c3a4, d3b4, e3g4, f3h4, g3e4, h3f4,
a5c6, b5d6, c5a6, d5b6, e5g6, f5h6, g5e6, h5f6,
a7c8, b7d8, c7a8, d7b8, e7g8, f7h8, g7e8, h7f8.

That is, square a1 is paired with square c2, b1 is paired with d2, and so on. Note that the 64 squares are partitioned into nonoverlapping pairs, and each set of paired squares are a knight's move apart. The winning strategy for Player 2 is: WHEREVER PLAYER 1 PUTS THE KNIGHT, MOVE IT TO THE OTHER SQUARE IN THE SAME PAIR. For instance, if Player 1 starts the game by dropping the knight on e8, Player 2 replies by playing Ng7. If Player 1 now plays Ne6, Player 2 plays Ng5, and so on. Here is a sample game, with Player 1 making random moves, and Player 2 following the winning strategy described above:

1. Ne8 Ng7 2. Ne6 Ng5 3. Nf3 Nh4 4. Nf5 Nh6 5. Nf7 Nh8 6. Ng6 Ne5 7. Nc6 Na5 8. Nb3 Nd4 9. Ne2 Ng1 10. Nh3 Nf4 11. Nh5 Nf6 12. Ng4 Ne3 13. Nc5 Na3 14. Nb1 Nd2 15. Nf1 Nh2 and Player 2 wins.

**P.S.** Of course the strategy still works if White is allowed to move the knight to **any** square not already visited, and only Black is limited to making knight moves.
> 13 votes

# Answer
I would assume that the optimal game would follow the knight's tour. The comment be CognisMantis is correct and the game would last 64 half-moves or 32 complete moves.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Has any chess engine developed its own opening book?
I'm referring to an engine that plays repeated games against itself and human opponents... and uses that data to develop its own opening book.

I'd think computers would have been used to develop new chess opening theory. Has this actually happened historically?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Yes, top level engines' authors generally also prepare an opening book with their engine.

But this process does not only involve computer matches. They make use of both computer matches, GM matches, and machine-learning (which you explain in your question)

This page has an interview about this topic on Rybka 4 book.

A quote from the page:

> Q: Your Rybka 4 Aquarium opening book will be released soon. It's clear that you put a huge amount of work into the book.
>
> A: Yes, I put a lot of work into it. It helps that I find it really interesting to analyze unknown positions and ideas from chess books, chess practice or computer games and find my own solutions. Today's opening preparation is very deep. In some cases players know their lines from the opening all the way to the endgame. A less prepared opponent will probably lose his way somewhere in the middlegame against such preparation. Things are looking even worse in computer games - long lines, often 50 moves or more, leading to a draw are similar to pre-arranged draws in human games.
>
> The technical advances mean that opening analysis is very different from what it used to be a few years ago, not to mention a few decades ago. However, even with today's amazing computer tools, the work of the modern opening book author is still very demanding.
>
> My method of creating a strong opening book consists of several steps. Assuming you already have a good database, the first step is the selection of games. Making a good hand-typed book is impossible. The selected games serve as the "raw material," and generate the initial version of the book. This step may only require a few hours of work. The next step is to fine-tune the move priorities. This is a very time consuming task, and in the case of the Rybka Aquarium book, it took a few weeks.
>
> Testing the book is an independent process. First you run a test and then you look at the results and try to find weak points in the book. After further analysis you may find some improvements, which require updates to the book and another test cycle must be run. This process will take a few days.
>
> Last, but not least is the creative phase of making an opening book. Here you need to find new ideas and get a deeper understanding of the lines in the book. One recurring question in this phase is why engines give a low evaluation, or play badly positions which are very good according to my own understanding of the position. This phase is not only very time consuming, it also needs a lot of creativity and manual interaction and guiding of the engine analysis.

---
Tags: opening, engines
---


title: Chess Strategy Defined

text:
# Question
Title: Chess Strategy Defined
I am trying to define chess strategy for myself, and I came up with the following explanation which I would like to get feedback on.

> Chess strategy can be defined as the creation of long term plans that will dictate your next several moves. In order to achieve these plans, you can argue that the chess player will resort to either positional, tactical or endgame devices.

My questions are:

1. Do you agree on the above?
2. How would you define chess strategy?
3. If you had to choose only 1 game that illustrates chess strategy in action what would that game be?
4. What methods do you use to evaluate a position to determine your strategy?

Update 4/17/16: Blog post about Chess Strategy.

# Answer
## 1. Do you agree on the above? 2. How would you define chess strategy?

From *Chess Strategy: Move by Move* by Adam Hunt, he defines chess strategy in his introduction as:

> Chess strategy is concerned with the correct **evaluation** of a position and the **formulation of an effective plan** based upon its **characteristic features**. When the word ‘strategy’ is mentioned, people tend to jump to the conclusion that we are talking about long-term middlegame planning, and that you have to be some sort of psychic who can see the future, but that is rarely the case. Many features of a given position which are strategically important will evolve out of the **opening** and finish in the endgame, so it would be foolish to completely ignore these phases of the game. Plans can be **short or long term**, depending on how the landscape in front of you is changing as the game progresses. This is why the subject is so complex and so much material is available on it.

Emphasis is mine.

So, to contrast to your definition:

* Hunt does not restrict himself to long term planning in his definition
* It spans all phases of the game, including the opening
* There is no explicit mention of tactical/positional devices, but I think it is covered in his "characteristic features"

## 3. If you had to choose only 1 game that illustrates chess strategy in action what would that game be?

On the basis of the complexity of the subject, no one game will highlight all elements of chess strategy.

## 4. What methods do you use to evaluate a position to determine your strategy?

This is covered in *How To Reassess Your Chess* by Jeremy Silman. He calls Hunt's "characteristic features" *imbalances*, i.e. differences in the Black and White armies. He considers:

1. Superior Minor Piece: Bishops vs. Knights
2. Pawn Structure—Weak Pawns, Passed Pawns, etc.
3. Space
4. Material
5. Control of a Key File (or indeed control of a key line)
6. Control of a Hole/Weak Square
7. Lead in Development
8. Initiative
9. King Safety
> 2 votes

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: Why is bishop slightly better than a knight?
While i was going through the chess piece values, Bishops is worth 3.30 points while Knight has 3.0 points.

> Although the 1/3/3/5/9 system of point totals is the most commonly given, many other systems of valuing pieces have been proposed. Several systems give the bishop slightly more value than the knight. A bishop is usually slightly more powerful than a knight, but not always – it depends on the position (Evans 1958:77,80), (Mayer 1997:7). A chess-playing program was given the value of 3 for the knight and 3.4 for the bishop (Mayer 1997:5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess\_piece\_relative\_value.

Please explain why is a bishop slightly better than a knight? I know it depends on the position for like as bishops, a knight can also have high points if it is placed on outpost.

# Answer
Here are the reasons:

1. Bishops are stronger than knights in open positions, and open positions are more likely than closed ones. If you think of the endgame in particular, many pawns have been exchanged, i.e. many end games are open, favouring the Bishop
2. The Bishop pair is an advantage, as the light square bishop covers the squares the dark square bishop doesn't and vice-versa. So 2 bishops together compliment each other, but the 2 Knights do not. They actually replicate each other, potentially making one of the Knights rather redundant
3. In an endgame, a Bishop can cover both the Kingside and Queenside because it is a long distance operator, meaning it can perform offensive and defensive duties at the same time (e.g. help push a friendly passed pawn and stop an enemy passed pawn at the same time in a race). The Knight cannot do the same
> 1 votes

# Answer
Only reason can be, statistically, there are more situations where bishops are stronger, comparing to positions where knights are stronger.

There are a lot of elements which affect piece values. It's not possible to say one piece is stronger than other. But you can say 'most likely' stronger. But for the same reason we can argue about rooks 5 point as well. Why not 4.9 or 5.1?

For example, more often, Queen+Knight pairs are stronger than Queen+Bishop pairs. Or you can reach a position where there is 1 or 2 open lines but there are a lot of open diagonals, where bishops beat rooks.

In extreme cases, a rook and even a bishop can be stronger than a Queen (imagine stalemate themes, Saavedra position, for example)

Engines fine tune these metrics to get a slight improvements in performance. There is no commonly accepted 'true' values for pieces. If we assume that there is a 'true' value set for each piece like (x,y,z,s,t), engines are just trying to approximate to these 'true' values.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: positional-play, pieces, point-value
---


title: Live viewers for top chess events

text:
# Question
Title: Live viewers for top chess events
What is the average number of live viewers (online and TV) for top chess events like the world championship match and the candidates tournament? Are there some statistics publicly available?

# Answer
> 3 votes
http://web.archive.org/web/20100605121529/http://www.dnevnik.bg/sport/2010/05/31/909514\_organizatorite\_na\_macha\_topalov\_-\_anand\_ochakvat\_pone/

It says (in Bulgarian): "The match Topalov - Anand (2010) made an absolute record on the Internet. For all 12 games together recorded 2 million links to the live broadcast of individual computers, but for just the last party - 300 000. Usually it is assumed that three people on average watched on a computer..."

For Anand - Carlsen 2014: https://www.chess.com/news/an-interview-with-ilya-merenzon-organizer-of-anand-carlsen-4530

"The total number of unique visitors was 10.5 million with the highest traffic on the last day of the match: 2 million visitors."

I make no warranty as to the validity of the accounting of these numbers.

---
Tags: statistics, world-championship, online, candidates
---


# Question
Title: Which is the smallest chess engine with ELO at least 2000?
Preferably written in javascript, but the language really doesn't matter.

# Answer
I'm not aware of any "small" chess engine written in JavaScript, but there's a "small" engine written in C. Micro-max has about 1900 to 2000 rating, depends on the rating list and testing condition.

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/cgi/engine\_details.cgi?print=Details+%28text%29&eng=Micro-Max%204.8

Note that it's not the smallest engine, but the engine that is even smaller than Micro-max plays awful chess (dropping pieces) and even walk into check (illegal move).
> 3 votes

# Answer
Garbochess-JS is written in javascript. It's about 75KB, 2400 or so lines of code I believe. The version written in C++ was rated around 2575 on CCRL.

https://github.com/glinscott/Garbochess-JS

Lozza-js is rated around 2300, and is about twice the size of Garbochess-JS.

Toledo Nanochess and P4wn are probably less than 2000 elo, and Stockfish-js is considerably larger than Garbochess and Lozza.
> 2 votes

# Answer
t seems like garbo was a little stronger maybe 2670 but anywhoo.

https://jtiscione.github.io/chessboard3js/play.html is a nice online interface for playing p4wn -weak lozzo -strong!! and stockfish -godlike

http://op12no2.me/toys/lozza/play.htm
> -1 votes

# Answer
http://forwardcoding.com/projects/ajaxchess/chess.html \<--garbo chess

http://htmlchess.sourceforge.net/demo/example.html \<-- 2d-3d chess
> -1 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: What are examples of grandmaster games where both Black and White castle opposite sides and the queenside players loses?
I want to become better at attacking my opponent's king when they castle queenside. What are some grandmaster games where the player who castles queenside gets mated or loses due to a powerful attack on the queenside?

# Answer
> 6 votes
That's a pretty typical scenario, you'll find a lot of examples if you search for games in the sicilian opening.

```
[Event "Sarajevo"]
[Site "Sarajevo BIH"]
[Date "2000.05.29"]
[EventDate "2000.05.17"]
[Round "11"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Sergei Movsesian"]
[Black "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B90"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.f3
b5 8.Qd2 Nbd7 9.O-O-O Bb7 10.g4 Nb6 11.Qf2 Nfd7 12.Kb1 Rc8
13.Bd3 Rxc3 14.bxc3 Qc7 15.Ne2 Be7 16.g5 O-O 17.h4 Na4 18.Bc1
Ne5 19.h5 d5 20.Qh2 Bd6 21.Qh3 Nxd3 22.cxd3 b4 23.cxb4 Rc8
24.Ka1 dxe4 25.fxe4 Bxe4 26.g6 Bxh1 27.Qxh1 Bxb4 28.gxf7+ Kf8
29.Qg2 Rb8 30.Bb2 Nxb2 31.Nd4 Nxd1 32.Nxe6+ Kxf7 0-1

```

---
Tags: statistics, database, middlegame, grandmaster, castling
---


title: Chess knowledge and understanding

text:
# Question
Title: Chess knowledge and understanding
I am not a beginner, but I am absolutely not a practicing chess player, although I would like for that to change. I am inquiring about which direction I should take in advancing my abilities and understanding of the game. I am probably a 1300-1500 level player, but it is all free wheeling and personal experience. I haven't studied much and I am starting to realize that I am not going to improve if I don't actively work on my game. Hopefully someone can guide me in the right direction! Thanks!

# Answer
> 1 votes
Generally the first advice is always to train lots of tactics.

That means you should start solving tactical exercises regularly. On your level this will lead to rapid improvement. You can train online on a variety of sites or get a good beginner's book.

The second important point is just to play. Over time you will get an idea of where your weaknesses are and you can start to look up opening lines, specific endgames or strategic themes.

---
Tags: learning, strategy, tactics
---


# Question
Title: Because of the distortion of the computer era, is it preferable to study mainly old opening lines?
I realize that you get rather a lot of questions from lower-rated players who ask, should I try this? should I play that? how can I improve? Many of you have been extraordinarily patient with these questions over the years; but, still, I have never myself thought of such a question worth asking you until today.

Consider a student of chess who plays in the ELO 1400-to-1700 range. Might it be wiser for such a student to study old opening lines from old books, printed during the precomputer era, than to study the new, computer-analyzed lines?

**ARONIAN, CARUANA, AND THE REASON FOR MY QUESTION**

The question occurred to me while reading Chessbase's recent report of Aronian's entertaining attack against Caruana during the Candidates tournament. The attack failed; the game was drawn; but, of course, when a titan like Caruana plays black, one does not assume that the draw proved Aronian's strategy bad! On the contrary, both players played this game in a most interesting way, beginning to end; so I am now wondering if Aronian's approach does not conceal an important lesson for a player like me, a lesson I have heretofore overlooked.

The question regards which *kinds* of opening lines are profitable, or edifying, to study. And by *kinds,* I do not mean open game, closed game, tactical, positional, symmetric, asymmetric, gambit, with rooks, without rooks, hypermodern, classical, etc. (I like almost all those kinds). I mean what Aronian meant during his recent Candidates game.

Now, if you rate around ELO 1500 as I do, you never really begin to understand a Candidates game without the benefit of master commentary. I should never have discovered any lesson in Aronian's play on my own! Fortunately, Sagar Shah of ChessBase gives us the commentary; and, after Aronian's 8. Be2, this is what Shah writes:

> Aronian chooses the classical setup of the good olden days with Be2, Nd2, Qc2 etc. Much more modern and aggressive is Bd3 followed by h3. But once you play something modern, it becomes theoretical, while with Be2 there quite some scope for creativity.

Does this mean that, by trying to play something modern, the ELO 1400-to-1700 player denies himself the crucial opportunity to develop needed creativity?

If so, I had never thought of this before. Do today's computer-analyzed lines impose a sterile, insightless, unprincipled quality upon the player who studies them? Maybe I should instead dust off some hearty old books?

**SOURCES?**

So, suppose that it were indeed preferable to study mainly old, precomputer-era opening lines. What would be a good, available source from which to learn those?

Admittedly, aged in my late forties, I have no pretensions to master chess. I just like playing chess occasionally, but if I could boost my play from 1500 to, say, 1600 or 1700, without turning chess from an occasional hobby to a serious avocation, I should like to do so. This is why, if Aronian has a lesson to teach, I should like to learn it.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I never played Sicilian Defense as Black for this reason.

A quote from Larsen:

> Had I not played the Sicilian with Black I could have saved myself the trouble of studying for more than 20 years all the more popular lines of this opening, which comprise probably more than 25 percent of all published opening theory!

Constantly following updates and remembering a modern, popular line has no benefit for a non-professional player (if you are professional, that's different). Instead, a chess player who wants to improve himself/herself should focus on understanding openings (not remembering them).

What improves your chess is to understand an opening, ideas behind, advantages, disadvantages etc. Remembering openings are like remembering opening traps, they can help you win the game without much effort, but they don't improve your chess.

A quote from Fischer, about memorizing opening theory:

> I don't know when, but I think we are approaching that \[the end of chess\] very rapidly. I think we need a change in the rules of chess. For example, I think it would be a good idea to shuffle the first row of the pieces by computer ... and this way you will get rid of all the theory. One reason that computers are strong in chess is that they have access to enormous theory \[...\] I think if you can turn off the computer's book, which I've done when I've played the computer, they are still rather weak, at least at the opening part of the game, so I think this would be a good improvement, and also just for humans. It is much better, I think, because chess is becoming more and more simply memorization, because the power of memorization is so tremendous in chess now. Theory is so advanced, it used to be theory to maybe 10 or 15 moves, 18 moves; now, theory is going to 30 moves, 40 moves. I think I saw one game in Informator, the Yugoslav chess publication, where they give an N \[theoretical novelty\] to a new move, and I recall this new move was around move 50. \[...\] I think it is true, we are coming to the end of the history of chess with the present rules, but I don't say we have to do away with the present rules. I mean, people can still play, but I think it's time for those who want to start playing on new rules that I think are better.

He propose random starting position chess which is widely know as Chess960, because chess is becoming more and more a memory game.

My experience tells me, if I play an opening, which is playable but not the best, and *out of the book* I get better results comparing to a popular line. Because I know the ideas behind, while my opponents often only memorize the best continuations. This is similar to what Aronian did in his game.

So, what sources are there? Actually, every good opening book covers the ideas behind, you don't need special sources. Just focus on the ideas next time when you read them, instead of variations.

## Edit

I remembered that this FritzTrainer with topic of **creativity in e4** was really good: https://shop.chessbase.com/en/products/e4\_for\_the\_creative

---
Tags: opening, master-games, study, candidates
---


# Question
Title: How is this retrograde analysis position legal?
On his page on Harry Goldsteen's "Horse Concoction,", Tim Krabbé gives this position by "N. Höeg, 1935."

```
[FEN "4k3/1p4pp/p1pQ1p2/1q1pp3/8/8/1K6/8 b - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

```

With the stipulation "add 10 white rooks; black mates in 1," he then claims that "Retrograde-analysis will prove that these Rooks can only stand on a1, a2, a7, b4, c1, c2, c5, c7, d7 and f7, allowing Black to mate with Qxb4." This is the claimed solution,

```
[FEN "4k3/RpRR1Rpp/p1pQ1p2/1qRpp3/1R6/8/RKR5/R1R5 b - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

```

However, I don't see how the supposed solution position could be legal. All of White's pawns have promoted, but because all of Black's pawns are present they must all have captured at least once to do so. But Black has only 5 missing pieces.

# Answer
White has made 6 captures. Clearly the h-pawn made at least 2, and the g-pawn 1. Meanwhile, the b-pawn made at least 1 (a7/c7), and the a-pawn at least 2 (to the b-file, then to either a7/c7). So White's c-d-e-f pawns made no captures, and thus Black's central pawn fence must have at some point had holes to allow them through. This requires 4 pawn captures, which is all that White has lost (knights and bishops).

Here is a stupid method.

```
[fen ""]
1. h4 Nh6 2. e4 f6 3. e5 Kf7 4. e6+ Kg6 5. f4 Ng4 6. f5+ Kh5 7. Nf3 a6
8. Ne5 fxe5 9. f6 Ra7 10. f7 Ra8 11. d4 Ra7 12. Bg5 Ra8 13. Bf6 exf6
14. Na3 Bb4+ 15. Ke2 Bd2 16. f8=R Bg5 17. hxg5+ Nh2 18. e7 Kh4 19. e8=R Ra7
20. Re6 Ra8 21. Rb6 Ra7 22. Rb3 Ra8 23. Re8 Ra7 24. Re6 Ra8 25. Reb6 Ra7
26. R6b4 Ra8 27. d5+ Kh5 28. g6 Rf8 29. Rg1 Rf7 30. gxf7 Ng4 31. f8=R Nh6
32. Re8 Nf7 33. g4+ Kh4 34. g5+ Kh5 35. Re6 Nc6 36. g6 Nb8 37. gxf7 Nc6
38. f8=R Nb8 39. Rc6 Ra7 40. Rcc3 Ra8 41. Re8 Ra7 42. Re6 Ra8 43. Rec6 Ra7
44. R6c4 Ra8 45. Rcg4 Ra7 46. R4g2 Ra8 47. Rbg4 Ra7 48. R4g3 Ra8 49. d6 c6
50. Nc4 Ra7 51. Ne3 Ra8 52. Nd5 cxd5 53. Rcf3 Kh6 54. c4 Ra7 55. c5 Ra8
56. c6 Ra7 57. c7 Ra8 58. Kf2 Ra7 59. Bb5 Ra8 60. Bc6 dxc6 61. Qe2 Bf5
62. c8=R Qe7 63. d7 Bd3 64. d8=R Bb5 65. a4 Ra7 66. axb5 Nd7 67. b6 Nc5
68. bxa7 Ne6 69. Rbe3 Nc7 70. b4 Qf7 71. a8=R Qg6 72. b5 Qg5 73. b6 Kg6
74. bxc7 Kf7 75. Ra7 Qf5 76. Rgc1 Qe6 77. Ke1 Qe7 78. Rd6 Qe6 79. Rcd8 Qe7
80. R8d7 Kf8 81. c8=R+ Qe8 82. Rcc7 Qf7 83. Re6 Qe7 84. Kd2 Qd6 85. Ree7
Qc5 86. Rf7+ Ke8 87. Rec3 Qb5 88. Qc4 Qb6 89. Qc5 Qb5 90. Qd6 Qb6 91. Kc2
Qc5 92. Kb2 Qc4 93. Rca3 Qc5 94. R3a2 Qb6+ 95. Rb3 Qb4 96. Rgc3 Qb5 97. Rc5
Qb6 98. Rb4 Qb5 99. Rgc2 Qxb4#

```
> 17 votes

---
Tags: problems, retrograde-analysis
---


# Question
Title: How to take advantage of under-development of opposing pieces?
Gambit openings are usually based on sacrificing pieces to have much better piece development.

Some gambits, like Queen's gambit, or King's gambit, I can understand the idea. However, I cannot evaluate Danish gambit. White sacrifices two pawns, has two developed bishops, but Black seems to be able to cover up pretty fast.

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2

```

Although it is obvious that Black has no piece development, how can White play to take advantage of it?

# Answer
> 5 votes
This is an example for how it can go wrong for Black side.

```
[Event "?"]
[ECO "B02"]
[White "Jacques Mieses"]
[Event "Monte Carlo"]
[Black "Frank James Marshall"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/ b - - 0 1"]

[Setup "1"]

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 d6 6.Ne2 Nc6
7.O-O Be6 8.Bd5 Nf6 9.Qb3 Qc8 10.Nf4 Nd8 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Nh5
c6 13.Re1 Be7 14.Qf3 Rg8 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Qxf6 cxd5 17.exd5
Rg6 18.Qh8+ Kd7 19.Nc3 Bxd5 20.Qe8+ Kc7 21.Nxd5+ Kb8 22.Rac1
Nc6 23.Rxc6 1-0

```

---
Tags: opening, gambits, development
---


title: Moves to test a notation generator

text:
# Question
Title: Moves to test a notation generator
I've made a small program that takes a list of moves in ICCF notation and translates them to the following:

* SAN
* FAN
* LAN
* MAN
* RAN
* CRAN
* Smith
* Descriptive
* Coordinate
* ICCF

For example, a starting move of `2133` (`Nc3` in SAN):

```
SAN  FAN  LAN     MAN  RAN     CRAN  Smith  Descriptive  Coord  ICCF  Comments
Nc3  ♘c3  Nb1-c3  Nc3  Nb1-c3  Nc3   b1c3   QN1N-QB3     B1-C3  2133

```

Unfortunately, I'm having some difficulty understanding a few of the rules of the various notation formats (especially Descriptive - as you can see, it doesn't currently omit the unambiguous ranks/files because I haven't implemented the check for unambiguous *destination* ranks/files yet... so it's possibly a bit too descriptive). For example, checks (e.g. `+`) are added to the end of a move, but promotions (e.g. `Q`) are also added to the end of a move. What if both happen at the same time? For that particular situation, I'm pretty sure the check is listed after the promotion indicator, but I'm even more sure that there are other situations I'm not even thinking of.

What I'm hoping for (and haven't been able to find with a few Google searches, as I don't even know what search terms would produce it if it existed) is a sample game with moves that create these uncommon notations, so that I can input them into my program as a kind of test suite, see what it produces, and check the results. Alternatively, a simple list of these situations (e.g. "a pawn that captures a piece into a promotion, for a check") would be good too.

If, once I've done that, I can't tell if the program's output is even correct, I'll ask a separate question about it.

# Answer
Chessbase 6 light version, free if you can find it, has an option to view the notation in descriptive notation.
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/499956-How-to-Convert-Descriptive-to-Algebraic-Forums may be a useful link.

The promotion does go before the check. There is no check before the promotion. Some people put an "=" before the promotion.

An interesting game to try to convert would be one with multiply Queens. This gives a promotion and ambiguity. You should also get a game with Queenside castling. When I test my move generator, I setup a semi-random position to test each position. To test your output, I agree with Tony Ennis, convert it to algebraic and play through the game. If all else fails, post them online and ask for someone to check the result.

Descriptive notation lesson: The first character is the piece being moved, pawns are not considered a pieces except for when they are capturing. The second character is "-" for a normal move or "x" for captures; if a Pawn captures, use the piece symbol, "PxP." The third character is the square where it lands. The files are named after the piece's home square. The third character is the rank counting from the side which made the move. "e4" is written as "P-K4" if White played the move else "P-K5."

Note: The old style did not include a rank if it is the first.

Ambiguity is settled by an expanded description. The first method is to try to expand the destination square. That is if you move a Bishop to "N5", if both Bishop can reach "N5", the square is expanded to either "QN5" or "KN5." If two pieces can reach the same square, the piece is expanded by the original side it started on. That is if both Knights can go to "Q2," you prefix the piece with its starting side, e.g. "QN-Q2." If a promotion occurred, you have to use long notation, "QN5-N6."

Castling was "castles" with the expanded form being "castlesQ." In modern times, people adopt the algebraic form.
> 1 votes

# Answer
For sample games, just write a program which generates a sequence of games each composed solely of randomly selected moves. A file with a few million random PGN games should be sufficient to cover all cases of interest.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: software, notation
---