# Question
Title: Why is castling through and out of check prohibited?
Why is castling disallowed when the king is in check or when the square the rook will be placed on is under attack?

What is the rationale behind this ruling?

# Answer
> 24 votes
One rationale that I can think of for not allowing the king to move through check parallels that behind the possibility of capturing en passant after a pawn makes a two-square advance.

* The typical pawn move is just a single square forward, and the possibility of advancing two squares on a pawn's first move was a *relatively late addition to the game* in historical terms. Since the "nature" of a pawn had long been to make a single square advance, when that new sort of pawn move came into being, the en passant capture was a natural counterpart: the pawn doesn't "jump" two squares ahead, but rather "marches" through the intermediate square, and an opposing pawn is thus allowed to capture en passant on the following move if it is in position to have captured the advancing pawn at the intermediate square.
* With that explanation in mind, let's consider your rule. Like pawns, a king's typical, natural movement is only a single square in distance. And like the pawn's two-square advance, castling is a *relatively new addition to the rules* of chess that is intended to speed the game up. So just as the en passant capture reinforces the pawn's nature as a one-square mover, the rule prohibiting a king to castle through a checked square reinforces the king's nature as a one-square mover. He is thought of not as gliding over the checked square, but rather trudging through it. And just as an opponent's pawn has a chance to capture en passant, an opponent's piece guarding the intermediate castling square would be given the right to capture the king. Since that's not a legal part of chess, castling through check in the first place isn't either.

As for why castling is disallowed just because of the king being in check, I'm not so sure, but I'll speculate. If, in the analogy between chess and war, we think of a check to the king as a wounding attack, less severe than the lethal checkmate but damaging nonetheless, then it's reasonable to insist that the hobbled king can't make a swift, immediate escape via castling. But maybe that's just how I think of it.

# Answer
> 17 votes
The way I always understood castling is that it allows the player to move his king to safety. But this privilege does not come for free - it comes at the cost of a tempo. If a player was allowed to castle out of check, or over a checked square, then it allows him to postpone this powerful move until the very latest, effectively removing the penalty from the privilege.

For me, this rule has nothing to do with how the king (or any other pieces) move. It has to do with achieving a balance between attacking play and defensive play. Just like how a goal keeper in football can handle the ball in his penalty area (but not if it was back-passed to him by one of his own players), so the rule of castling is there to ensure that you get a defensive edge, but not for free. You have to work it into your strategy.

# Answer
> 10 votes
I just posted an answer to this question How did castling originate? and I think it offers a missing part of the answer to this questions as well: What the rationale is, behind not being able to castle out of check.

Historically castling was probably two moves (the rook move and the king's leap), that were merged into a double move, because they basically always followed directly one after the other. Just like the double move of the pawns.

And just like you cannot escape capture from an enemy pawn, by just moving past it, you cannot escape check by just castling: In both cases the "double move" is dissected into the two original moves - the pawn can be taken en passant and the king could still be taken after the rook move, making castling illegal.

In both cases the rationale is speeding up the game, without changing what was possible before.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Because that would be cheating. Well, to be fair, the reason is to make it reasonable that when *all of the squares surrounding a king and the square it stands on are attacked by the opponent*, the defender cannot simply *warp* away and out of trouble, while simultaneously delivering a new defender in the fray. The move would simply be too powerful.

However, you *are* allowed to do this:

```
[FEN "1r6/p2nkp1p/2B1pb1B/2p5/6r1/2P5/PP3P1P/R3K2R w KQ - 0 21"]
[Event "Todd Southam Memorial"]
[Site "Toronto"]
[Date "2004.06.13"]
[White "Krupnov, Maxim E"]
[Black "Smith, Hazel"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2361"]
[BlackElo "2051"]
[SetUp "1"]
[EventType "schev (rapid)"]

1. Be3 Rxb2 2. Bxd7 Kxd7 3. O-O-O+ Kc6 4. Kxb2 {and White won in 42 moves} 1-0

```

---
Tags: rules, castling, illegal-move
---


# Question
Title: Is c5 a key move in an opening where white begins with d4?
In one game between world class players, (Alekhine and Rubinstein), the game began 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 ...

When Rubenstein played 3... a6?, Alekhine grabbed the opportunity to reply 4. c5! because a6 was a "wasted" move and 2) weakened b6. This was the case even though it is usually not good for White to release the tension on d5 so early. (Alekhine won.)

In this game between amateurs, the game appears to have been decided by Black's 14th move 14. ... Nf8, and the fact that White could play c5 on move 18 (after exchange of several "forced" moves). I lost a game without making tactical mistakes; how can I avoid this happening in the future?

On the other hand, I was told that if Black can play c5 against d4 without adverse consequences, he equalizes. Which is why I advised Black to play 3... b6 in the game in the previous paragraph, to prepare for an eventual c5.

Is it true that in a game where White opens d4, the result of the game is largely determined by who gets to play c5?

# Answer
> 9 votes
First of all, 3...a6 after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 is not a terrible move for Black. It has been played by many top-level grandmasters, including Morozevich multiple times. 4.c5 is historically the eighth most common move in that position (4.cxd5 is the most common), so it's not like it refutes 3...a6. Opening theory has moved on since Alekhine.

To the more general question: putting a pawn on c5 in 1.d4 d5 positions changes the position a lot, played either as White or as Black, so it's always worth considering.

For Black, ...c5 is one of the primary ways to try to break up White's strong center based on d4. It can be easier to engineer than the other possibility, ...e5, because his dark-squared bishop is already supporting it. He can also play supporting moves like ...Nbd7, ...Qc7 (both of which are also useful for preparing ...e5), and ...Rac8. Often Black's early play is based on creating the opportunity to play ...c5; if he can get it in without problems, he's usually doing well. Note also that ...c5 is an incredibly important move in the French, again trying to pry open d4.

For White, c5 is fairly rare. It does gain space on the Queenside, but its main drawback is that it releases a lot of pressure on Black's d5 pawn. This means that his e6 pawn isn't as necessary to support it, which makes it a lot easier for him to play ...e5, since he doesn't have to worry so much about having lots of support for both the new e5 pawn and the suddenly-less-defended d5 pawn. Generally it is considered that the cons of c5 (removing pressure on d5 so that ...e5 is harder to stop) outweigh the pros (gaining space on the Queenside).

One exception is the Chebanenko Slav (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6), where 5.c5 is a quite common move. One extra thing it has going for it here is that it highlights the weakness of Black's b6 square, and it's going to be a bit difficult for Black to play ...b6 to engage with it. In the game you mention, Alekhine probably had a similar idea regarding the weakness of the b6 square after 3...a6.

(18.c5 in the game you link to had nothing to do with any of this; that move is good because it entombs the bishop on b7.)

# Answer
> 3 votes
After reading your question, I googled and Franco Sicilian Defense came up. I wouldn't play the Sicilian directly against d4 (as in 1.d4 c5), so the Franco actually makes sense to me.

Looking at the games in their database it appears that out of 1600 games, black only wins 31% of the time, and 2...c5 is played, which is the probably the earliest *I myself would play* c5 against d4, so I'd have to say *myth busted* :=)

---

Also, we can debunk that by imaging what would happen in an amateur game if `1.d4 c5` was the opening play, I don't think statistically black would come out on top or even draw. Quote from Wikipedia:

> "Indeed, most statistical surveys suggest that 1.d4 is the most successful first move for White, but only because 1...c5 scores so highly against 1.e4."

# Answer
> 1 votes
The ***entire family*** of Benoni Defenses and the Benko Gambit all include ...c5 in response to 1.d4.

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Benoni Defense & Benko Gambit"]
[Black "A57-A79"]
[PlyCount "15"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 {is the Benko Gambit} (3... e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 {is the Benoni})

```

The Blumenfeld Counter-Gambit is another example:

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Blumenfeld Counter Gambit"]
[Black "E10"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c5 4. d5 b5 {is the Blumenfeld Counter Gambit}

```

The Benoni has a performance of 62%-38% for White over 9650 decisive games, and 28% draws. So, ...c5 doesn't seem to work for Black in that opening.

The Benko Gambit has a performance of 58%-42% for White over 15,300 decisive games, and 31% draws. So, it looks as if ...c5 doesn't seem to work for Black in that opening.

The Blumenfeld has a performance of 58%-42% for White over 2390 decisive games, and 28% draws. So, again, it looks like ...c5 doesn't seem to work for Black in that opening.

However, in the Berlin Defense, a notoriously difficult nut for White to crack, the performance is *59%-41%* for White in decisive games, with 49% draws.

So, ironically, the Blumenfeld and Benko Gambits\_both\_ yield marginally *better* results for Black than the Berlin Defense! There is no way to confirm that it is a direct result of the move ...c5, however.

Conversely, when White can play both 1.d4 and a later *c5*, he has a performance of 61%-38% score in the decisive games, and about 32% of the games being draws. (This is based on a sample of 3880 games where both players were ELO 2000 or higher.) This is a slightly higher score than most openings offer.

A comparison could be made with the Giuoco Piano (Italian Game), where White scores only about 54-46% in decisive games, with 43% draws.

A possible hypothesis is that *the move c5 leads to a win*, but it may be that strong players of White play the move when it's reasonable, and weaker players don't, even if it's reasonable. In other words, it may just be an *indicator* of when a strong player of white is facing a weaker player of black, not the deciding factor itself.

---
Tags: opening
---


title: C45g, where to find this ECO code?

text:
# Question
Title: C45g, where to find this ECO code?
I have a text file with 10K+ ECO opening codes from the Scid source distribution, for example:

```
C45g Scotch: Steinitz, Berger Variation
C45q Scotch: 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Nb3 Bb6 6.a4 a6 7.Nc3 Qf6

```

I know `C45` is the code for Scotch Game, but I'm not sure `C45g` and `C45q` are valid.

**Q**: Are `C45g` and `C45q` valid? Should I just rename them to `C45`? If they're valid, where should I look up for more information?

# Answer
These codes are the extended ECO codes by SCID, and have no meaning outside it.

When classifying the games you can enable or disable the extended ECO codes to force SCID to use the standard ones, if you prefer so.

There's a short explanation of the reason for the extended ECO codes here: https://sourceforge.net/p/scid/wiki/TheECObrowser/
> 3 votes

# Answer
I have the 1981 editions of Volume C, and there is no g or q that I can find. It's possible that the creators of that file used lettering instead of numbering for the sub-variations, since q is the 17th letter of the English alphabet, and line 17 under C45 does match up with the variation listed.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The ECO system, invented by the publishers of Informator chess magazine, has 2 levels that represent valid coding, just as the United States Postal Service and the Post Office in the UK do.

The first is the 3-character code structure of X99, where X is in the set {A-E} and 99 are any numeric digits.

The second is the *first* triplet, then a "/" slash character, and then another 2-digit code, used for subvariations in the main lines.

There are no lower-case alphabetic characters in the Informator system. So, the code that the Scid opening book is not valid according to the standard.

It's not unusual for an organization to find that the ECO code system is weak, disorganized and difficult to apply. This is in part because it was not designed well for growth, and copes poorly with the evolution of opening theory.

Here are some examples of where it falls down:

Some codes have multiple openings. The "A00" code encompasses the Grob Attack, Dunst Opening, Sokolsky Opening, Basman's Opening, Benko's Opening, Mieses Opening, Saragossa Opening, Ware Opening, Anderssen's Opening, Van't Kruis Opening, Gedult's Opening, Durkin's Attack, and the Deprez Opening.

Basically, it is the bucket into which anything other than a commonly-used first white move goes, including 1.Nc3, 1.g4, 1.b4 and 1.g3, although these start many games. I have over 22,000 games beginning 1.Nc3 alone in my database, and nearly 27,000 games beginning 1.b4. So, the A00 designation is not useful, from a practical standpoint, in separating games like these.

Another problem with the ECO system is that it is based on move order, and it is possible to *transpose* between opening systems within the first or so 10 moves. As a result, common *tabiyas* or standard positions can *arise* from multiple, completely different move orders. They can also *lead* to entirely different openings. One example of such a tabiya is the Caro-Kann Defense, Panov-Botvinnik Attack variation's position after:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "B13"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1996.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Caro Kann Defence"]
[Black "Panov_Botvinnik Attack"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B13"]
[PlyCount "7"]
[EventDate "1996.??.??"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 *

```

This can lead to positions from:

* A35, the English Opening, Four Knights Variation;
* B22, the Sicilian Defense, Alapin Variation;
* D20, the Queen's Gambit Accepted with e4;
* D26 the QGA with 5.Bc4 c5 sidelines;
* D40-42, various variations of the Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch;
* D94, the Gruenfeld Defense with 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 e3;
* E54-55 and E57, The Nimzo-Indian Rubinstein, mainline with 7...dxc4 8 Bxc4;
* E61, the King's Indian Defense, early deviations.

So, no single ECO code can be reliably applied to this tabiya, or to the moves leading up to it.

Furthermore, certain openings such as the opening moves of the English and Reti Openings often evolve into tabiyas that then lead to a Queen's Gambit, King's Indian Defense, Queen's Indian Defense, Gruenfeld Defense or Catalan.

This field of transpositions has become so thick that Andrew Soltis has published a book about it, *Transpo Tricks in Chess*.

Fortunately, thanks to game databases that store *positions*, not moves, the problems of move order can be left behind when researching openings.

This suggests that the ECO Code system is not really needed for most purposes, either, though it can be handy as long as you realize that it is an unreliable guide, and are willing to work within its limitations.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, eco
---


title: Has loser chess been solved?

text:
# Question
Title: Has loser chess been solved?
Loser chess has a benefit of sorts. There are many turns where moves are forced. So my question is, has it been solved? I'd say that the move tree is much smaller than chess. If not:

* How much would it weight? Have there been any studies on the number of moves?
* How much time would it take? The number of positions will probably be much less than normal, so the time should be much less.
* Are there any ongoing projects?

# Answer
> 9 votes
Professor Mark Watkins announced he had found the solution to Losing Chess in October 2016. Regardless of what Black plays, White can force a win beginning with 1. e3.

# Answer
> 6 votes
To the third question: yes, there are. I found one, at least. This page should interest you. It has some articles, proof trees and is updated regularly, it seems. The articles and files on the page also give some indication as to the first two questions, for example the number of nodes and size of the proof tree files.

It appears that game as a whole is not solved, but some of the more common variations are. There are also some endgame tablebases available.

Remember, as one comment stated - many moves in the game are not forced, thus vastly increasing the number of possibilities.

# Answer
> 4 votes
For question 3, just as GloriaVictis said, losing chess is almost solved. Only 1.e3 b6 is still being solved now. All others have already been proven to be a black loss. Based on how fast each response to 1.e3 (generally at most several months) is solved I believe we will see the solution of losing chess this year.

Also the solution is likely to be a white victory. For your first two questions they will be known after losing chess is actually solved.

P.S.: I'm following Prof. Watkins' research almost daily so when losing chess is finally solved I will post an answer here.

---
Tags: chess-variants, losing-chess, solving
---


# Question
Title: Is there any website or software that are like "Guess the move" training program in chesstempo?
I find the "Guess the move" training program in chesstempo website very helpful. But this is not free and also the number of games is not much (compared to tactics training program which is in the order of hundreds of thousands; while "Guess the move" program contains around 100 games). Is there any other website or software that is like "Guess the move" training program?

# Answer
> 4 votes
What about the iOS SmallChess app written by myself?

(source: smallchess.com)
(source: smallchess.com)
(source: smallchess.com)
(source: smallchess.com)

# Answer
> 2 votes
You can use Scid for that. You'll need a database of games; for example you could download games from chessOK or The Week In Chess and filter them to use only games between 2400+ players.

Once you have such database you can use the `Play|Training|Review game` functionality and you'll get what you're looking for.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Not free, but I've found that Shredder's tactics training ("Find the best move for White/Black") seems to have an endless supply of such questions (probably only in the thousands in actuality).

The Polgar book "Chess" with 5000+ mating problems is also good, but also not free.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I wrote some free software: GuessTheMove. YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZgWSCHxJHI. Website: https://sites.google.com/site/fredm/

# Answer
> 0 votes
I don't know exactly the way the "Guess the move" training works in in chesstempo website. But chess.com has the "chess mentor", and as far as I know is offered also to free accounts. I pretty much love that one, you can choose from many lessons and they are grouped by categories. What I like is that, if the given board position is too hard for your level or you simply cannot "read" the correct plan, you can choose to ask for up to three tips to guide your thinking on the right track.

I just verified now with a friend having a free account and at least some time ago the chess mentor WAS also available to free accounts - not sure how it is now. It is limited however to the number of problems one can do, even some paid membership can do up to 5 lessons per day.

# Answer
> -1 votes
Try lichess.

It is free and offers tactical positions where you need to find the best next move.

---
Tags: strategy, training
---


# Question
Title: How many games to play in a chess match?
I gave someone 3 months to become as good a chess player as I am. She was just a beginner and I'm a slightly below average player (around 1500 elo).

To see if she managed to do this, I figured we should play a chess match consisting of multiple games.

But what is a reasonable or standard amount of games to play in a chess match (or a 2 player tournament, if you will)?

# Answer
The amount of games in a match is usually\* even, to guarantee an equal balance between White and Black. 2 game (mini)-matches are rare, except in knock-out tournaments like the Chess World Cup. More games will produce a more reliable result, so you should play as many games as you have time for, but 4 games should already give a good indication about who's the better player. With some mathematics and the expected performance formula you can calculate the odds of losing an X-game match to a player who is Y ELO points better/worse than you.

*<sub>: The only exception is an Armageddon game which can be used after a match which ended in a draw (i.e. the same score for both players).</sub>
> 4 votes

# Answer
Play 6 games at G15 or G30. record all the games so you can review them afterwards. That will give you just enough games to gage her play.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: tournament
---


title: Positions for visualisations

text:
# Question
Title: Positions for visualisations
where I can download positions for visualisation training? I am not looking for diagrams, I would like to have only position record saved in standard chess notation.

Or are there such a book?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Visualization training is visualizing moves on the board **WITHOUT looking at the board**, like:

* Tell all the squares controlled by a knight on d4
* All the shortest paths to move a knight from a3 to h8
* How a Qa5 can attack a Rh4 without being captured
* How a Nc4 can check a Kb7 defended by Bb6 without being captured

etc., etc.

you might laugh and think it is easy, but it is not. Try a series of them randomly created and write down your answers then compare them to what you see while looking at the board.

Fun stuff.

Purpose? It makes you a better calculator when looking at positions during your game. You will eventually instantly see multi-move paths that pieces can take across the board, especially knights.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Practice technique.

One of the things that you can do is to have your opponents king in the center of the board, your king doesn't have to even be on the board. The going thru each possible position with a single major or minor piece for your opponent and the same for you, with your single major or minor piece attempt to fork, double attack or skewer the opponents king to his other piece in one move. Obviously it will not be possible with every position or actually fewer than more often. It will then help you automatically visualize where are good squares to move your minor and major piece and create a visual habit for immediate tactical positions for you pieces.

# Answer
> 0 votes
This ICC video contains visualization exercises. It also covers tactical vision and board vision.

# Answer
> 0 votes
See if this link helps. It's a type of chess puzzle designed by GM Maurice Ashley. Here's a Reddit discussion of he same - link

---
Tags: training
---


title: Add comments in a pgn file

text:
# Question
Title: Add comments in a pgn file
I have a pgn file containing a game. I want to add a comment into the game (like at move 23. - This is a ok move etc.) using words and not symbols. Is it possible to do this?

# Answer
```
[Date "1910.01.07"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Carl Schlechter"]
[Black "Emanuel Lasker"]

1. e4 {Notes by J. R. Capablanca} e5 {This is Black's second move!} 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 *

```

This is a sample PGN game. You'll just need `{` and `}` to enclose your comments. But you should use a chess program to do it for you. SCID is free and can do it for you.
> 11 votes

# Answer
Yes, there are two ways to add a text comment to a pgn file.

The first is far more common: simply wrap the comment in {braces}

```
1. e4 {Best by test!} e5

```

The second is less common, but also a part of the official pgn spec1. An end of line comment is allowed if it is preceded by a semicolon

```
1. e4; Best by test!
1... e5

```

This is far more awkward to read (since there is an extra move number in the file) and not all software supports this.

As an aside, all major annotating software (chessbase, chess.com, lichess.org, SCID) defaults to using the first scheme.

1: The pgn spec file can be found either at https://www.chessclub.com/user/help/PGN-spec or http://www.saremba.de/chessgml/standards/pgn/pgn-complete.htm
> 11 votes

---
Tags: pgn
---


# Question
Title: What are the main differences between 6...Bb4 and 6...Be7 in the Panov-Botvinnik attack?
After the moves 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3, what are major differences in plans and variations for Black between 6...Bb4 and 6...Be7?

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "11"]
[StartFlipped "1"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Bb4 (6...Be7)

```

---

Currently I use 6...Bb4 and play against an isolated d-pawn or hanging c and d pawns. I understand these plans quite well. But often Black concedes the bishop pair and is left with a bad light square bishop, which I think is a major weakness.

# Answer
> 7 votes
According to the Game Database of ChessTempo, the mainlines of 6...Bb4 and 6....Be7 are quite similar:

1. 6....Be7 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Bd3 Nc6 9.0-0
2. 6....Bb4 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Bd2 Nc6 9.Bd3 0-0 10.0-0

Remarkably, the main move for the second line is 10....Be7, which transposes to the first line, but with an extra Bd2 for white. For instance, Nakamura-Wojtaszek and Motylev-Jakovenko.

Instead of 7.cxd5, white can also play 7.Bd3. In this case it is difficult to tell whether the bishop is better placed on b4 (to have the possibility to take on c3) or on e7 (to protect against the pin after Bg5).

**Edit by Evargalo:** The logic behind Black wanting the White bishop on d2 and not c1 is a bit complicated: In the variations with the bishop on c1, the main line (after 9.0-0 Nc6) is the logical 10.Re1, where there is a lot of theory and Black has to work hard to equalize. With the bishop on d2, however, 11.Re1?! is a dubious pawn sacrifice after 11...Ndb4! 12. Bb1 (or Be4, or Bf1, or Bc4) Nxd4, because the Bd2 interferes in the Qd1-Pd4 connection. Thus the main lines are 11.Qe2 or 11.a3, which are less direct although the opening debate remains open to this day.

Objectively speaking, the values of 6....Bb4 and 6....Be7 are probably similar. Therefore, choosing between both moves is more a matter of taste.

Note that the position after 6....Bb4 can also arise after a transposition from the Nimzo-Indian, which is the subject of another Stack Exchange question.

```

      [StartPly "11"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nf3 Bb4 (6...Be7 7.cxd5 (7.Bd3) Nxd5 8.Bd3 O-O 9.O-O Nc6 10.Re1) 7.cxd5 (7.Bd3) Nxd5 8.Bd2 Nc6 9.Bd3 O-O 10.O-O Be7 11.Re1?! (11.Qe2) (11.a3) Ndb4 12.Be4 Nxd4

```

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


# Question
Title: Is it possible to integrate an opening book and/or endgame tablebase into a chess engine? If so, how?
I'm currently attempting to program a chess engine for a club project; one where many different people could create different engines and they could play a tournament or something of that nature. As such, I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to rely on a GUI like Arena to provide opening/endgame database support.

Is there a good way to integrate such databases into the engine itself? I am using UCI on Java to program the engine.

# Answer
It's possible to integrate an opening book and/or endgame tablebase. Unfortunately there is no Java solutions, because chess engine programming is dominated by C/C++. Maybe you want to switch to C/C++? Your life will be easier.

**Opening book**

PolyGlot book (http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/details1/PolyGlot.html)

**Tablebase**

Syzygy tablebase (this question has the details)

**My recommendation**

Unless you're an expert in programming, I don't think it's a good idea to work on Polyglot and Syzygy yourself. They're not written for beginners. GUI like Arena would be a better idea.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Does chess help develop moral virtues or correct practical attitudes?
Benjamin Franklin wrote a famous essay on the virtues of chess, claiming that it teaches foresight, circumspection, caution among others.

Kasparov Chess Foundation's mission is to bring the many educational benefits of chess to children worldwide by providing a complete chess curriculum and enrichment programs. The Foundation promotes the study of chess as a cognitive learning tool in curricular classes and after-school programs for elementary, middle and high schools, both in the public and private school sectors.

This mission statement presupposes that there actually are educational benefits of chess.

Is there any argument to support the claim that chess can help develop moral virtues or practical skills? Or is it perhaps just the wishful thinking of chess playing philosophers and philanthropists?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Chess definitely helps with intellectual development and education. Math is the most obvious area where chess definitely helps. There is a lot of research to back this up. If you think about it, chess develops general mental abilities including: strategic competency; the ability to analyze variations; spatial relationships and interdependencies; self-confidence in the face of complex problems. All of those abilities are generally useful in solving all kinds of problems in school and life.

Here are links to some web resources where you can read more about the well-documented benefits of chess in education.

http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/strategies/topics/thinking-skills/chess/

http://www.psmcd.net/otherfiles/BenefitsOfChessInEdScreen2.pdf

These are just two examples. There are a lot more articles out there on the Internet, and they mostly arrive at the same basic conclusion.

Moral virtues are another story.

Chess doesn't directly help with moral values. Bobby Fischer was a great example of this. He was a brilliant chess player, but widely regarded as the worst kind of person. He had very clever and elaborate arguments to support his negative and self-destructive points of view. There are many examples of top level chess players who are wonderful people, but also quite a few examples of immoral behavior among grandmasters.

# Answer
> 1 votes
To my opinion, chess also develops pacefulness, which in turn offers a more stable stress management ability to the person.

Obviously, this does not necessarily mean that chess does alter an individual's temper in expressing. Though, it suggests that long time players do develop both patience and strict time situations' overcoming, in clear thinking.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Sez Ben. Sez Sherlock Holmes, chess is "one mark, Watson, of a scheming mind." Doyle excelled at chess.

As for its usefullness, one may as well ask if a Picasso or a Da Vinci masterpiece is usefull.

Virtues? Playing chess has only made me more bloody-minded...when playing chess. Kill...quickly-eficiently!

For moral insight, I like using a mirror.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There are better things to do than play chess if cognitive improvements are desired. This is not to say that chess has no utility in the educational system. I believe that chess is helpful for children to develop simple problem solving skills, but when we get to high school, a hour review session in mathematics is much more useful than a hour of chess. As for moral values and attitudes, chess is not the rate determining step here. upbringing, environment, society, disposition.... These are much stronger factors. Not suprisingly, we all know non-virtuous chess players.

---
Tags: teaching
---


# Question
Title: Amazing chess feats while in altered states of consciousness
This might seem an odd question, however out of personal curiousity, are there any documented accounts of amazing feats by players while in an altered state of consciousness? What I'm looking for would be something like attempts at drunken, blind, simultaneous chess.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I don't know if this counts, but here is a story (unfortunately only in Norwegian) about the former president of the Norwegian Chess Federation, Jøran Aulin-Jansson, who in his youth played blitz for 92 hours straight: http://www.nrk.no/sport/92-timer-med-sjakk-i-strekk-1.6589371

In 92 hours and 26 minutes he played 701 games and won 549 with 32 draws.

He explains how accidentally eating a rotten chicken kept him awake during the third night.

At one point he hallucinated about spiders crawling up his leg. I guess that qualifies as "altered state of consciousness".

# Answer
> 3 votes
For blindfold chess, the record is playing 46 games at once:

> In 1947 GM Miguel Najdorf, while sitting in an isolated room, played 45 games simultaneously in São Paulo, Brazil. In another room his opponents sat with regular boards and pieces in front of them, and their and Najdorf’s moves were transmitted to each other via standard chess notation using a microphone. This performance exceeded his own previous world record of 40, set in 1943 in Rosario, Argentina. Until a few weeks ago, since 1947 only one player had played as many as 35 blindfold games at once under well-controlled conditions. That successful master was Marc Lang of Günzburg, Germany, who handled 35 opponents in November of 2010, surpassing blindfold champion George Koltanowski’s still-existing European and pre-Najdorf world record of 34 simultaneous games set in Edinburgh in 1937 (in 2009 Lang had set a new German record of 23). Lang’s only remaining goal was to exceed Najdorf’s 45 games and thereby gain the world record. **For the past year he has been preparing to do just that, which he accomplished by playing 46 opponents on November 26-27, 2011.**

Source: blindfoldchess.net

# Answer
> 2 votes
Tal wrote in his biography that once he had a complex adjourned position and that night he dreamed the solution while sleeping. When he woke up, he remembered the dream and knew what to do. He wrote that this was the only time such a thing had ever happened to him.

Playing chess while under the influence of recreational drugs or alcohol generally has very bad results, speaking from experience. You generally play at a significantly lower level. The only exception is that sometimes a very small amount of alcohol, like one drink, can sometimes be beneficial because it calms you down a little bit. So, if you are all wound up and nervous before a tournament game, a beer can be the antidote.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess games and matches played while drinking alcohol in particular are easy to find if you go back in history a bit. The one that immediately comes to mind are the matches between La Bourdonnais and McDonnell in 1834 in which La Bourdonnais won despite reportedly spending much of his time between moves drinking, smoking and gambling on other games. Perhaps this is not a 'feat' in the same manner as a massive simul or so on, but these were arguably the two strongest players in the world at the time and so could be considered a de-facto world championship match.

And also as in one of the comments to the OP, Alekhine also played many of his games while drinking heavily, apparently including his 1933 World Championship match.

# Answer
> -1 votes
Does it count when it is the opponent? I defeated a GM in a simul (I am a low 1800) just by playing passively until he had imbibed several mugs of "tea", at which point he essayed a grossly unsound sacrifice.

# Answer
> -1 votes
Paul B., Good question. I'm possibly a 1000 rated player on a good day, fingers crossed. A few decades ago I was playing the black pieces against an unbeatable cafe player. I'd dropped acid. Five moves into the game, he suggested I move my Bishop to b4. Then I started peaking, and I absolutely annihilated him - felt vibrating ley lines humming from all the squares and pieces. I knew with absolute certainty that I couldn't lose. Best game I've ever played, and the odd thing was that I beat the second-best player twice the next evening...?

Sigh. Hick town, no chess here, not willing to drop acid and have elderly freakout even though, whew, I live next door to a trauma center...yuk, yuk.

In short, you never know about mind expanding drugs and chess, (in fact the mind is endless,) but wow-what a ride!!!

---
Tags: history
---


# Question
Title: He has two queens. I have one. Is it proper chess etiquette to check him non stop just to avoid losing?
I am losing a game. My only option is to check my opponent non stop. I have no chance to checkmate him. I am only hoping to force a draw. Is this proper chess etiquette?

# Answer
> 14 votes
What you are describing is Perpetual Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual\_check

It is covered in the rules of chess and the result of such a game is a draw. It is up to your opponent to try and avoid this situation if he thinks he can win. Conversely, if you might lose you should try to get into some kind of draw situation to avoid a loss.

Anecdote: A queen vs. queen, knight, and bishop did the same thing at the club quick tournament last night.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Yes, it is proper chess etiquette. You are not obliged to resign if you have an inferior position. If you can force a 3-move repetition draw by non-stop checks (called "**perpetual checks**") you definitely should. Players at the highest level have done this.

In fact, we even celebrate some games which have ended with perpetual check by the side with the weaker material. Consider the famous "**Immortal Draw**" game -

Carl Hamppe vs Philipp Meitner 1872, 1/2-1/2

```
  [Event "Vienna"]
  [Site "Vienna"]
  [Date "1872"]
  [Result "1/2-1/2"]
  [White "Carl Hamppe"]
  [Black "Philipp Meitner"]
  [FEN ""]

  1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Bc5 3. Na4 Bxf2+ 4. Kxf2 Qh4+ 5. Ke3 Qf4+
  6. Kd3 d5 7. Kc3 Qxe4 8. Kb3 Na6 9. a3 Qxa4+ 10. Kxa4 Nc5+
  11. Kb4 a5+ 12. Kxc5 Ne7 13. Bb5+ Kd8 14. Bc6 b6+ 15. Kb5 Nxc6
  16. Kxc6 Bb7+ 17. Kb5 Ba6+ 18. Kc6 Bb7+ 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
Yes, this is good sportsmanship. In fact, the perpetual check is the most important defensive tactic in the Queen+pawn vs Queen endgame.

I can add the following to the previous answers. Other variants of chess have a different opinion about this question. For example, in Chinese Chess, it is forbidden to make perpetual check. See, for example, this resource.

I hope that my contribution is not too far from the topic.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There are several "forced" drawing conditions (other than an agreed draw). In most of these situations, someone is usually behind in material.Basically, a draw occurs when one player can prevent the other from checkmating him, using force.

One is "insufficient material to win." That is, someone has a king and bishop or knight against a lone king, and can't force a win. Another is "stalemate, whereby one player can't make a legal move, but is not in check (and is therefore not "checkmated").

Your situation covers two more categories of draw. The "classic" description of your situation is called perpetual check. That is, you keep the other side so "busy" dodging your checks that your opponent never gets a chance to checkmate you. This also leads to another drawing condition called "repetition of position." That is, if the same position is repeated three times, with the same player to move, it is a draw.

# Answer
> 0 votes
If the chess opponent is not good, then he could *lose* a queen, then all you now need to do is do a Queen-as-Rook+King check*mate*.

However, if he *is* good, then perpetual check is *not* an option. You will lose your queen, and get mated by the double Queen mate.

Unfortunately, the *only* way you will get a queen is by a skewer attack and luck. Keep your Queen close to your King, and guarantee at least a Queen loss for the opponent.

He can perpetually check you. There is no denying it. *If he does decide to do so, do the same to him*.

---
Tags: draw, etiquette, check, perpetual
---


# Question
Title: Looking for a Horrible-by-design chess engine
I am looking for a really-bad-by-design chess engine, compatible with Arena chess GUI. Not just lowering engine power.. I have tried lowering Stockfish's power, and it didn't suit my needs, so I am looking for a weak one!

# Answer
You have a whole list at http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/

If you're looking for a weak engine, I'd suggest:

1. Predateur 2.2 64-bit
2. MicroMax
3. CupCake
4. BikJump

I know those four engines work and run smoothly, although they're quite weak (which is exactly what you want!). Any Elo 2000 rated human player can trash them easily.

\__ **My Recommendation** \__

If your engine can't even beat the lowest Stockfish level, maybe it'd be a better idea to focus on your engine, such as adding easy technqiues like null-move pruning. As an average human player, I can consistently beat the lowest Stockfish level, it plays around 1500-1600 level. Even the engines I mentioned might be too strong for you.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I found it! UFIM works well for my purpose!
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, software, arena
---


# Question
Title: Additional openings that are Chess Position Trainer compatible
I just started playing with Chess Position Trainer and I really enjoy the experience of playing through the "Closed Sicilian” repetoir that comes pre-loaded. The manual mentions that you can build your own or purchase some through ebooks.

Where can I get additional openings that are Chess Position Trainer compatible and are targeted for beginners 1300?

The manual states:

> After importing a professional ebook you can use the function Re-ordering of Candidate Moves (p. 77). This will take care of positions where the author offers alternative moves for a position. It only works if the author used move assessments for each alternative though (which is usually the case). Then the program will automatically bring them in order!

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chess Position Trainer can be loaded with a PGN file of games in your repertoire. The manual describes how to do this.

The question of how to choose a repertoire is dealt with elsewhere on Chess.StackExchange.com.

Good guidance for how to prepare the PGN file for CPT is in the manual. The manual is available at the Chess Position Trainer website for free.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Found 1 repertoire for Juniors so far:

Also, I've had some luck downloading PGN files from

I seem to have found some additional older files here:

---
Tags: opening, software, database, beginner
---


title: Arena Chess playing with the engines

text:
# Question
Title: Arena Chess playing with the engines
Can someone show me how to stop an Arena engine from showing lines that it is intending to play while we play rated games?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Right click on the window where moves are displayed -\> show/display -\> click on comments. Now the engine output should be disabled.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Goto the menu, (at the top.) And click engines, click manage, and in the left side menu that pops up, double click all of the enabled engines to disable them!

---
Tags: engines, arena
---


# Question
Title: What sort of job opportunities fits well with a good chess player?
A friend of mine recently lost his job, and he happens to be a pretty decent chess player; Over 2000.

There is not enough chess teaching positions in the area to employ him full time, and he hasn't quite found his niche yet in the working world. What sort of job opportunities really take advantage of spacial logic and other characteristics that would belong to a good chess player?

# Answer
If you're question is: What job can I get if I put "strong chess player" on my CV, the answer is probably nothing. Although a difficult game to master, the skills you acquire with chess has very little resemblance to the skills prospective employers are looking for. Employers value real world experience in their domain - they are not usually too interested in abstract similarities.

On the other hand, if you're question is: I'm good at chess - what else could I be good at? I imagine any career that is founded on logic and mathematics would be a reasonable fit - perhaps computer programmer or actuarial work. But you still have to do show that you can do the job - either by getting an education or getting experience even if it means doing work in your free time.

Being a chess player is a certainly a benefit - it shows you are able to grasp complex problems and perform under pressure - but at your friend's level it is not nearly enough by itself to get any kind of job that I'm aware of.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: teaching
---


# Question
Title: For team events, what is the correct way to record a player's team in PGN format?
More or less as the title. I'm helping transcribe some games for a team tournament that is happening, but I can't find any field in the software I'm using or even the PGN format specification for a 'Team' field. Considering that this problem must have occurred before for high-profile team events (Olympiad, Bundesliga, etc.), is there an accepted way to record this information in a PGN file?

# Answer
There are two fields I have seen used extensively for this purpose: **WhiteTeam** and **BlackTeam**.

They don't appear to be documented in the PGN Standard, but don't let that discourage you.

As one example, I have found these fields present in the Olympiad 2016 Baku PGN games download file. They are also present in any PGN file created from a MegaBase database for a team tournament. They are also included in every PGN file published by The Week In Chess (TWIC) by Mark Crowther and by ChessBase Magazine, such as the World Team Championships, the French, Swedish and Hungarian Team Championships, the United States Chess League, the European Club Cup, and so on.

This means they are populated by publishers of game scores, and also that they are stored in a CBH-format database. The PGN handler for ChessBase will both export and import these fields within the PGN data.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: pgn
---


title: What should I eat during a tournament?

text:
# Question
Title: What should I eat during a tournament?
I was wondering, what should I eat during and before a big tournament? I've already learned that sugar is a *no-go* for me for the most part... Any advice? Thanks in advance, ~CSS

---

> My question is different from Eating and drinking before and during a game.
> I find that sugar affects me adversely, and all the answers on the other thread are referencing sugar... I need something substantial...

# Answer
> ...what should I eat during and before a big tournament?

Try taking a look at an article that FM Mike Klein wrote for Chess Life, the USCF publication, in 2008. It's available *here*.

It recommends nutrition for before and during play, but it also emphasizes the importance of a good diet *all the time*.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: tournament
---


# Question
Title: What are good openings to study to get more experienced players out of their comfort zone?
Sometimes I end up getting the opportunity to play a friendly game with someone who has played a lot more chess than I have; these games seem more fun and interesting for everyone (and I seem to end up with a better chance of winning) when I can push play away from common positions without incurring a big early disadvantage. Are there openings that I can study to accomplish that more dependably?

# Answer
> 5 votes
GM Edmar Mednis wrote an excellent book on *How to Defeat a Superior Opponent*, in which he states that you should *not* attempt to play to your opponent's weaknesses, but instead *play to your strengths*.

This means that you should:

* Know what playing style suits you
* Pick a few openings that lead to games of that kind
* Learn the main ideas of those openings, and some key variations (and any traps)

Then he adds:

* Find opportunities to create complexity in the position, so that your opponent has a higher chance of making a mistake

There are a few off-the-beaten path openings that will force him out of his book, but they will only give you an advantage if *you are also comfortable in the positions to which those openings lead*. If you're both at sea, he's still going to win.

If he's over 2200, you should expect him to have a pet line for each of:

* The Sokolsky Opening
* Grob's Attack
* The Budapest Gambit
* The Benko Gambit
* The Vienna Game and Gambit
* The King's Gambit (this would really be asking for it)
* The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
* The Sicilian Wing Gambit (if he plays the Sicilian)
* The French Wing Gambit (if he plays the French)
* The Trompowsky
* The Evans Gambit
* The Scotch Game and Gambit
* Bird's Opening
* The Dutch Defense
* Alekhine's Defense
* The Scandinavian, including the Icelandic Gambit
* The Danish Gambit
* The Göring Gambit

but you might catch him with (in order of solidity):

* The Two Knights Tango
* The Chigorin Defense (QGD)
* The Urusov Gambit
* The Winckelmann-Riemer Gambit in the French

# Answer
> 12 votes
You can play a surprising opening, which your more experienced opponent has probably encountered very rarely, like a gambit or a rare sideline. Theoretically-wise you will stand on more even ground then. Even better, since you will play this line often, you will have more practice with it than him, improving the odds even more. But usually such openings are seldom played for a reason, at example because they are unsound, or you have to remember very complicated lines, or they offer less winning chances than competing opening systems. There are so many such opening systems (there are even periodicals dealing exclusively with them) I don't list any of them over others.

Apart from this general thought I would suggest a more detailed approach. Try to understand what the exact nature of the advantages of your opponent (or what your own disadvantages) are and act accordingly:

* Tactically much better than you? =\> go for quiet lines with focus on strategic plans, use closed systems with few tactics so you deny him the use of his advantage
* Much better theoretical opening knowledge? =\> use sidelines and shaky gambits, and pray he doesn't know those ugly refutations and critical lines
* Strategically much better? =\> choose simple systems and learn the ideas behind them thoroughly. You will close the gap soon and know the resulting structures as good as he.
* Generally better in every aspect? =\> play what you like most and learn from your defeats

A word of warning, though. For a competing mind this might sound like a clever plan. True, it is fun to spring a surprise weapon at a stronger opponent and gain a victory this way. But, and this is a big BUT, in the long run your goal is probably to become a better player over time, and this means gaining a deeper understanding of all the chess topics. Remember you can't get better at tactics by avoiding them ;) When your opponent leaves his comfort zone, he may play weaker. But leaving your **own** comfort zone makes you stronger - in the long run!

# Answer
> 7 votes
Gambits are often a good way to get your opponent out of their comfort zone. As white, some good gambits include:

* the Morra Gambit
* the Evans Gambit
* `4. Ng5` in the Two Knight's Defense (black is sacrificing a pawn here though!)

For black, the Sicilian and the King's Indian are good ways to create a double edged game. A line that you know by heart in the Sicilian is probably your best bet. Against `d4` you can consider playing an early `...c5` with the Benko Gambit or the Benoni - both of which can lead to an unbalanced game as well. White probably has a fairly good idea of what to do against the KID because it is so common which is why either the Benko or the Benoni can be a nice change of pace.

# Answer
> 6 votes
You should focus on openings that require thematic or strategic understanding, as opposed to ones that require lots of book-knowledge/theory. Then you will get to positions that you are comfortable in and not have to learn the nuances of sharp and highly-analzyed variations that more experienced players will tend to thrive in. Basically, an experienced player's "comfort zone" is beating a less-experienced player in a theoretical line: they have a risk free way of leaving the opening with an advantage. If you take away that theoretical advantage, I would argue they will be less comfortable facing you.

IM Andrew Martin discusses opening repertoires here. Based on the above, from his list of opening repertoires I would then suggest:

> **For White: Trompowski and Pseudo-Trompowski**
>
> 1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5! And 1 d4 d5 2 Bg5! A must here will be to get hold of as many Julian Hodgson games as possible- he has been carving up Patzer and Grandmaster alike for many, many years. At the heart of this repertoire is the limitation of Black's choices- you are conducting the game on your terms. The positions can be different too- White can opt for Pawn structure play or outright attack depending on how he is feeling.
>
> **For Black: Scandinavian and Slav set-ups**
>
> Rock solid. As Black vs 1 e4 play the main line BANKER with 1...d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd8! or 3...Qa5, in both cases following with ...Nf6, ...c6 and ...Bf5! And vs d4 and Flank Openings go for the solid Slav set up with ...c6 and ..d5, aiming for a similar structure. Truly an opening which can be learned in a minimum of time .

# Answer
> 5 votes
The Benko gambit is good if you're playing black.

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 c5
3. d5 b5

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
You should play the positions that *you* play the most and are most comfortable in. Since it is unlikely that those same openings are also the most common for your opponent, you will be relatively more comfortable in them than he is.

The problem with playing a special opening just against experienced players is that you will be just as uncomfortable playing them as they are. That is, unless the experienced player happens to know it, then it's actually only uncomfortable for you...

# Answer
> 2 votes
The Alekhine's Defence as black. It's a great practical, attacking weapon:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 Nf6
2. e5 Nd5
3. d4 d6

```

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Positional motifs and training websites/softwares/apps?
Tactics have motifs like skewer, pin, fork, weak back rank etc which can be used to guide you towards candidate moves.

Are there similar positional motifs?

I think Silman's imbalances is close to what I'm asking for, but is a bit too higher level and not especially useful in generating candidate moves. His concept of dream position is something to target in 10+ moves, and I find it hard to implement in practice. (Yes, major piece ending with his backward pawn is good for me, but we have 4 minors to trade, what's the first move?)

I'm looking for something less blue-sky and can give guidance for the next 1-2 moves. Example: h4-h5 against king side fiachetto; c4 is more powerful when opponent puts B on d6 (usually with opposing pawns in d4,d5).

Of course, just as a pin does not always lead to winning a piece, these are ways to generate candidate moves and everything needs to be checked in a concrete position.

Also, are there any training software/website like chesstempo, but on positional puzzle? I tried chessimmo, but its positional puzzles are mostly opening moves (I only did the free ones though).

# Answer
> 3 votes
I found a very useful guide to thinking about both positional and tactical situations in an online course offered by VisualWize, who make chess visualization training software. You can find it ***here***.

You might find the portion of the course on positional evaluation helpful.

There are both sections of content and exercises to practice what you've learned. I have not tried their other training courses, which go into this material in more depth, but this course struck me as comprehensive and effective.

I admit to using an amalgam of different methods that I've learned from multiple sources, but this is the closest I can find to a comprehensive system.

You can also try a variety of chess training apps offered by ChessOK on the PC, and Chess King on Android (and probably Apple) - these are the same people, in two different markets. On Android, their "Strategy" app offers a limited number of theoretical topics for free, plus a corresponding set of problems that cover Development, Space, Attack on the King, Attack on the Queenside, and Defense/Counterattack. For a small charge (less than $10), you can buy the rest of the course, including 13 more topics in areas like: weak squares, positional sacrifices, hanging pawns, improving your pieces, pawn structure, open files and diagonals, etc.

Andrew Soltis wrote a good book on choosing a strategic move (well, any move) called *How to Choose a Chess Move*, in which he offered a short course in "priyomes", which are short plans to be used in certain types of positions to accomplish a short-term objective. Unfortunately, there is no catalog of priyomes anywhere, since there 10's of thousands of them (apparently), but you get a good introduction to the concept. Also, Mauricio Flores Rios' book, *Chess Structures* discusses quite a few openings, their tabiyas, and the types of plans each offers for both sides. That makes it a kind of catalog for priyomes for the openings. These aren't software, but you can't always have everything...

Arthur Van De Oudeweetering has written an interesting book on 40 less well-known (but actually fairly frequently-occurring) priyomes that he has identified, which is called *Improve Your Chess Pattern Recognition*. I'm working my way through that book, and adding the patterns to my pattern store, because they're surprisingly common (and effective). He also does something I don't see often in chess training materials: he complements the normal "*Do's*" with some "*Don'ts*", pointing out some of the kinds of anomalies in the position that could render the pattern ineffective or even dangerous.

He has now published a sequel, called *Train Your Chess Pattern Recognition*. I haven't seen this one, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't live up to the original. BTW: An Amazon reviewer has warned against buying the Kindle version of the 2nd book because the figurine characters don't render properly; the first book's Kindle edition is fine.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Positional Motifs are known as Priyomes, and can generally be described without using chess notation, such as "To win, White must open the c-file, double his rooks and infiltrate the seventh rank." You get the idea. There are several books that have been written about them - a google search will reveal those to you. But, one in particular stands out - 100 Chess Master Trade Secrets by Soltis. Chapter One: Twenty Five Key Priyomes is what you might be looking for.

Good Luck.

---
Tags: positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Can computer analysis really understand human behavior?
I just finished a game. I got into a pretty convenient position at move 17 (I play white):

I noticed that in order to checkmate, I only need to remove the black bishop from protecting e7 and then I can get my knight there and checkmate. So, I figured that if I push the pawn on the b file to the c file, there's a good chance my opponent would capture the knight on c3 "for free" and would allow me to checkmate. My plan worked like a charm but the computer analysis tells me that was a blunder.

I do realize that it might not have been the best move if I would have played against a GM. But in this scenarios which we're both around 1400+, this seemed like the most logical move.

So, I wonder how could I really trust an engine if it only plays GM level and doesn't understand the potential move for a human on a specific level.

Here's the PGN for the game with the analysis:

```
[fen ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5 3.Nf3 dxc4 4.Nc3 e6 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 gxf6 { (+0.60 → +1.11) Inaccuracy. A better move was Qxf6. } 8.Bxc4 Nc6 9.O-O O-O 10.Qd3 e5 11.d5 Bg4 { (+0.94 → +2.81) Mistake. The best move was Na5. } 12.Qe3 { (+2.79 → +1.53) Inaccuracy. A better move was dxc6. } 12...Na5 13.Be2 Kh7 14.Nh4 f5 { (+1.48 → +2.08) Inaccuracy. A better move was Bd7. } 15.Nxf5 Qg5 { (+2.31 → +4.92) Blunder. The best move was Bxf5. } 16.Bxg4 Qxg4 { (+5.23 → +9.72) Blunder. The best move was Qxe3. } 17.Qxh6+ Kg8 18.b3 { (+11.64 → +3.66) Blunder. The best move was d6. } 18...Bxc3 { (+4.09 → +318.00) Blunder. The best move was Qg6. } 19.Ne7#

```

# Answer
> 11 votes
This response will be very critical of OP's attitude to chess analysis, and I realize that it may even come across as somewhat harsh. However, it is assumed below that OP is interested in improving, and thus I feel that some level of harshness is justified here.

Playing for cheap tricks - because that is exactly what 18.b3 is - is not something a computer would do. You will never find an engine that "understands" the "motivation" behind playing such a move. It calculates variations, and notices that the move is just not good.

However, you seem to be under the erroneous impression that this is not a desireable property for the engine under these circumstances. In the example position you give, of course 18.b3 is a bad move in every respect. It is good if and only if black is careless enough to take on c3. The move doesn't threaten anything, and it only gives black time to defend a lost position. As you have other ways of playing that, unlike 18.b3, won't jeopardize your winning chances, the move is correctly classified by the computer as a mistake.

So basically: you get a winning position, and you don't know how to win. Seeing no way to win, you play a move that isn't very good if black just ignores the knight on c3, hoping that your opponent blunders. You don't try to play the best move in the position. And yet you feel like there is a reason to object when the engine picks up on this? Remember that there is an iron clad rule when playing chess, that should always be followed:

**NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR OPPONENT!**

I would absolutely not put it past a 1400 player to spot that 18...Bxc3 is a bad move in that position. Furthermore, playing in a way that relies on your opponent falling for 1-move traps, because thinking of better ideas is too much of a bother, is no way to improve. And if you don't want to improve, why does this question even need to be asked? There is no other obvious point in reviewing the games that you play.

If you were in a lost position instead of a winning one, then your doubt would have been justified, as sometimes in such a situation, only the cheap tricks have a chance at succeeding. But if you have a good position, you shouldn't bash the computer for criticizing your way of handling the position. In analysis, you should under no circumstances assume that one side will make bad moves. Analysis is about finding the truth - not about making yourself feel better about your play.

One final note: if you really want to improve using analysis, you shouldn't rely on the computer for analyzing your games. Focus on trying to find the best moves in the position yourself. The computer can never explain the "why" of a position. That is something you need to figure out for yourself most of the time if you don't have the help of a strong human player.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The idea is right but the execution is wrong. The idea being that you noticed that that bishop is absolutely required to remain on that a3-f8 diagonal or it's checkmate for you. Good job seeing that! But trying to win by "trickery" is not really the way to go in chess. Because even lower-rated opponents may not "fall" for it, especially given enough time to think. Look instead at a more threatening/limiting move for that bishop like a3. Black has no good place to which to move the bishop. Black may well make the same mistake and take the knight, but if he/she does not, you have more good follow up moves.

# Answer
> -2 votes
"Can computer analysis really understand human behavior?". My answer is 'Yes, I believe so - as least as well as any person can'. I have studied many chess games over the past 50 years with a view to understanding how natural thought processes occur, so I think that I am qualified to make such a bold statement.

If we assume that intelligence is essentially a matter of information processing - based on knowledge about the world - then the conclusion must be that computer programs will be capable of emulating natural intelligence to a large extent. I am also assuming of course that human beings will be able to comprehend what goes on 'behind the scenes' and I dare say that I have developed some useful insights in that respect, at least in the domain of chess.

In this particular scenario, the knight move to e7 could satisfy a goal of mate, given that the program/person knows about checkmate situations from prior experience or study. Likewise the black bishop at b4 may be 'activated' (i.e. the internal concept relating to it would be), such that it could counter the proposed knight move. That in turn could lead to a sub-goal of moving the bishop away, perhaps via placing some tasty morsel in its path so to speak.

The last paragraph is deliberately tentative, as the actual behaviour depends upon the relevant knowledge available (which will vary from player to player) and the speed of information-processing involved. It is conceivable that a computer could be equipped with knowledge equivalent to that of a poor human player and thus exhibit similar behaviour. Whether it could actually think in linguistic or pictorial ways is another matter but I don't see why not.

Thus my conclusion is that a suitable computer program could also play in the manner described and might also be able to explain its reasoning. Then we might reasonably decided that it also understands human behaviour.

There is a lot more theory that I could write about but I this is not the best place to do so.

---
Tags: analysis, engines, blunder
---


# Question
Title: Is the number of possible chess games infinite?
This question is somewhat related to Can the total number of possible wins/draws/losses be calculated?, but slightly different.

There is a recent TV show episode that claims that there are "more possible games of chess than atoms in the universe". They go on that "each possible move represents a different game, a different universe \[..\]"; "by the second move there are 72084 possible games, by the third -- 9 million, by the fourth --- 318 million".

So is the total number of chess games infinite, for all practical purposes given human and technological limitations? And do the above numbers actually hold up to scrutiny? (i.e. What are the estimated possible games by, say, the 10th move?)

---

Curiously, Wikipedia seems to be implying that the number of games can be estimated:

> the number of possible games \[in Go\] is vast (10761 compared, for example, to the 10120 possible in chess)

# Answer
The maximum number of moves in a chess game is not infinite, it's 11797 plies = 5898 moves and a half. This is due to the fifty-move rule.

So no, the number of possible chess games is not infinite.

The maximum number of legal moves in a position is 218. So a crude upper bound for the number of possible chess games is 218^11797 = 10^27586

Wait, actually after fifty moves without any capture or pawn movement the players can also continue playing without claiming the draw...

Article 9.3 of FIDE Laws of Chess states that:

> 9.3
>
> The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if:
>
> * he writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which will result in the last 50 moves by each player having been made without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or
> * the last 50 moves by each playerhave been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

So I guess the number of possible chess games could be considered as infinite then...

But if you're not interested with the previous theoretical numbers:
The average number of legal moves in a position is around 35, and the average length of a chess game is around 40 moves = 80 plies, so an estimate of the number of "rational" chess games is 35^80 = 10^123
As for the total number of legal positions, it's somewhere between 10^40 and 10^50.
> 22 votes

# Answer
Q1: Yes. The total number of chess games can be considered infinite for all practical purposes. We don't have the technology to brute force over the first 13 moves from the initial position.

Q2: The actual numbers all the way up to depth 13 is known. The exact number of possible positions for the 10th moves is 69,352,859,712,417. Read this Wikipedia article for more details.

There is an attempt for depth 14 but so far the calculation after months and months is still running.
> 7 votes

# Answer
One simple argument that the number of chess games is finite could be as follows.

Due to the 50-move rule, any 50-move subsequence of a given chess game will contain at least one capture or a pawn move. Since there are finitely many pieces on the board, and since pawns can move only finitely many times during a game, the number of moves in a chess game has a finite bound. Since in each move, there are only finitely many possibilities, the numbers of all games is finite.

Note that this argument is almost useless if one wants to get an estimate on the number of possible games. If for nothing else, the only thing I use above is the 50-move rule and how the pieces move, so the repetitions are allowed (max. 50-fold repetitions, of course). Hence, the argument is just theoretical, not practical.
> 2 votes

# Answer
At some point you'll run out of combinations. So the answer is basically no.
> 2 votes

# Answer
According to my calculations is about 10 ^ 134 different variants of the game http://jknow.republika.pl/chessexplorer/szachy.html
> 1 votes

# Answer
50-move rule includes 'upon a correct claim': No claim, no implementation of the rule. Same applies to repetition. Ergo, infinite.

Without a mandatory maximum number of moves, of course.
> 0 votes

# Answer
On understanding FIDE laws-First they are for use with tournament play- so given that information do you understand how FIDE laws doesn't relate to two friends who decide to play? For two friends, who whittle down to two kings only, they can chase each other around the board an infinite amount if they wished. (Plausible-not really, possible-yes)

On FIDE law 9.2 - 50 consecutive moves must be made where there is no pawn moved and no capture made. This obviously wouldn't be a "50-move game" (e.g. 1.e4 would mean another 50 consecutive moves without a pawn moved or capture made)

On FIDE law 9.6 - 75 consecutive moves... Same reasoning that this is not a 75 move game.

One of the first evidence of a recorded game went 14 consecutive moves (1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 f5 4. ef5 Bg2 5. Qh5 g6 6. fg6 Nf6 7. gh7 Nh5) Even though the 15th was checkmate- if the winner decided not to checkmate he would have still needed 75 more moves to declare the draw in FIDE law 9.6 (with 12 pawns left on the board -I doubt it would have happened in 75 moves)

Respectfully, CFC
> 0 votes

# Answer
Since other answers here point to repetition or similar I wish to modify your question to, "Are the number of possible chess POSITIONS infinite. The answer is "No." The total is very large though and estimated to be about 10 to the 120th power. The total number of atoms in the universe is thought to be only 10 to the 80th power. Wow!

The number 10 to the 134th power given by a previous responder may be correct.

The Chinese game "Go" is even more varied than chess(but boring by comparison since chess has pieces with different abilities, while in Go all the pieces are the same).
> 0 votes

# Answer
I may be looking at this too simplistically but it seems to me the number has to be finite. If we look at the board and the pieces rather than the game of chess and calculate the number of possible variations we can obtain an answer that is finite. Mind bogglingly huge but finite. Given not all combinations are possible in a game of chess the number of combinations in a game of chess has to be less than this finite number and therefore a finite number itself.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: theory, statistics, game-complexity
---


# Question
Title: Why is 7. f3 so ubiquitous in the Yugoslav Sicilian?
I'm a mid-level player just starting to systematically study openings, and I'm wondering why it is that after the signature Yugoslav initiation 6. Be3 by White, and the certain follow-up 6. ... Bg7, it seems that virtually all masters (~95% according to lichess) opt to play 7. f3.

Specifically, I've been reading John Emms' *Starting Out* series on the Sicilian, and the only mention he gives of this move is that it prevents an "annoying Ng4." Why is it all that annoying? For example, let's say I play 7. Qd2 first, then Ng4 by Black, chasing the bishop to g5 for fear of exchange, with h6 by Black forcing Bh4:

```
rnbqk2r/pp2ppb1/3p2pp/8/3NP1nB/2N5/PPPQ1PPP/R3KB1R b KQkq - 1 9

```

Sure, the bishop has had some cardio in the opening, and it no longer looks like the typical Yugoslav exchange of Dragon bishops is going to happen, but it at least looks playable. Stockfish 25ply rates it at +0.3. This is equivalent to how it rates the orthodox Yugoslav tabiya:

```
r2q1rk1/pp1bppbp/2np1np1/8/2BNP3/2N1BP2/PPPQ2PP/2KR3R b - - 6 10

```

What am I missing?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Objectively speaking, you're probably right: 7.Qd2 seems fine and after 7....Ng4 white can still hope for an advantage after 8.Bg5 Nc6 9.Nb3.

However, after 7.Qd2 Nc6, black does threaten Ng4. So, white should play 8.f3 anyway, also because it is part of his plan. As a result, we transposed to the main line of 7.f3.

Therefore, white doesn't gain anything by playing 7.Qd2 first. Actually, it only gives black an extra option: 7....Ng4.

# Answer
> 1 votes
F3 prepares g4 and h4, starting a pawn storm on the black king. It also prevents Ng4 by black, harassing white's dark squared bishop.

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


# Question
Title: Substituting one engine for another in a tournament
I am running a strong computer chess engine tournament, using arena 3.5.1 All engines are playing a large number of games. One engine appears to be glitching so I want to replace it with another alternative (in terms of CPU speed / compatibility) of the same version of the engine.

Is it possible to substitute one engine with another and retain the points that the other engine has already earned?

# Answer
You can delete the old engine executable and copy a new one with the same filename to the same directory.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, tournament
---


title: Mate With 3 Knights

text:
# Question
Title: Mate With 3 Knights
How do I checkmate with *3* knights? I know 2 is a draw, but with 3 is not.

# Answer
Here's an example of how to do it, plus some general guidance.

I can't find a single game in my 7 MM games database where it was managed, though a couple of players have tried it and come pretty close.

The key difficulty (beyond knowing what to do) is managing the timing; knights can't lose a move, so you can end up being ready to mate in a good position, but having one move too many (or being a move short).

I pulled this mate off once in a tournament game. My opponent is known for forcing his opponents to play out to mate, so I thought it might make the process a more interesting challenge. I promoted two pawns to knights to make a team of 3, and deliberately dropped a bishop in a check that forced capture. I solved the timing problem by keeping a spare rook away from the mating area, and when I found myself needing to lose a move with the king already netted, just shifted the rook. Then I was able to finish the mate.

There are two main types of mating pattern, the side mate and the corner mate. There are a couple of types of corner mate, but once you get close, you'll probably see the one that's eligible in your situation.

Here's a theoretical position I cooked up, to present the most challenging problem I could imagine. I used this as a training position.

```
[Event "?"]
[White "3 Knights Mate"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "K + 3N v K"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "6n1/n7/4K3/8/8/4k3/8/1n6 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "29"]

1... Kf4 {Mate in 14 from this position.  Note that the knights are almost in the corners, so this is as bad as it's likely to get without obstacles in the way. General move guidelines:  1. Close with the king before the knights _unless_:  a. You can close with check      b. You are defending     2. Surround the king at a distance first, so that whichever direction he runs, he will be moving towards more than 1 of your pieces.       3. Use self-defending "Tango" formations of 2 knights to create a fence to guide the king towards an edge or corner. Use the king to protect the 3rd knight.     4. Drive the king        a. first towards the other pieces,        b. then towards an edge       c. then _near_ but not _into_ a corner       5. Use zugzwang; checks aren't always necessary. Just make sure the defending king only has bad exits, ideally only one bad exit.     6. Learn the corner-zone mating maneuver.     7. Don't rush; the knights don't all come into contact with each other before at least the 10th move, and then only when they're on the 3rd rank/file from the edge, at the closest.     8. When the knights are together, keep your king next to them, or you'll lose one (and the win).      9. Don't worry about forcing the king onto only one square all the time.  Just make sure that if he has 2 squares to use near the edge, you're between him and the center, and can pivot to pen him in no matter which he chooses.} {flanking - Close with the king before the knights. Surround the king first.} 2. Kd5 Nc3+ {2. Close with check. (cutoff setup, closing with check.)} 3. Kc4 Nab5 {The 2 nearest knights form a Tango, and create a cutoff. Note how, with the king, they form an almost complete cutoff separating the queenside from the kingside.  The nearest hole is on d7.  That's where the defending king heads next.} 4. Kc5 Ke4 5. Kc6 Ne7+ $1 {Black sets up another knight tango, and splits the board into two zones.} 6. Kd7 Ncd5 {Tango} 7. Ke6 Kf4 $1 {Cutoff. Black uses zugzwang to push the king back. Checks are not essential.} 8. Kf7 (8. Kd7 Ke5 9. Ke8 Kf6 10. Kd7 Kf7 {transposes}) 8... Kf5 {The natural followup, closing with the king} 9. Kf8 Nd6 {cutoff along the edge again} 10. Kg7 Nf6 {This is the first piece to take up its final mating square.    The king and rear knight keep the white king from escaping via f7 or g6. The rear knight also maintains the cutoff behind the white king. The knights are on the same color squares as the corner they are forcing the defending king into.  The defending king has only 3 squares to choose from, including the corner, while he's in zugzwang.    The knights now start a series of maneuvers in which they form a kind of spinning wedge or Flying V; the center knight is towards the corner or edge, and the others flank it on the diagonals or the rank and file. This is Wedge 1.  "Don't Rush." This is the 10th move of the maneuvering, and the knights have only just come into contact on adjacent squares.} 11. Kh6 {Now that the rear knight's cutoff along the back rank is no longer vital, it can advance, relieving the king from denial of g5.} Nf7+ {Push the king onto the 2x2 corner square on the long diagonal, _not_ into the corner! He must be driven to the opposite edge square at the end of the 3rd file/rank. Note how the rear knight relieved the king from denial of g5.  The king will move onto e6, its final mating square, next move. The knights and king form a knight's move shape themselves. The knight on the corner of their formation attacks both the king and the corner they are targeting. It is a knight's move from the corner, itself, of course. The king forms the "tail" of the knight's move formation.  Next, it will "close the box" with the 3 knights.    The knight that just moved is weaving a zig-zag of 3 moves to mate on g6.    This is the 2nd Wedge.} 12. Kg7 Ke6 $22 {(support, zugzwang) The black king moves onto its final mating square, closing the box with the 3 knights.    Now the white king is trapped, and has only one move.} 13. Kf8 Ne5 {Quiet move. Pull the first of the two knights nearest the edge back 2 squares until it's behind the king, __without check_.  Note that mate is not immediate; the knight must redeploy.  This is the 2nd move of the knights 3-move zig-zag maneuver to give mate. You are "flipping the box", putting the two knights that are closest to the defending king on the opposite side of the box. (3rd Wedge)} 14. Kg7 Nf5+ {Pull the other knight back 2 squares _with check_, leaving only the corner square and the edge square free, but setting a new cutoff on the other edge.    You have "flipped the box". This is the final formation to give mate.    (4th Wedge)} 15. Kf8 Ng6# {The farthest knight "opens the box" to give the mate.     (Oh, and this is the 5th Wedge in a row that the knights have formed.)} 0-1

```
> 9 votes

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate, knights, knight-endgame
---


title: Neither Attacking nor Defending?

text:
# Question
Title: Neither Attacking nor Defending?
I am a novice in chess. After about ten moves, I sometimes get into a situation where I am neither attacking nor defending and really can't figure out what my next move should be (that is I don't want to launch a premature attack, but not getting any offense from the opponent too). Is this common? and what should I do in such a situation?

Update:

What should be the general attitude while playing the game? of course, the goal is to win, but rather, what should be in the back of the mind when moving pieces? Should it be always according to a plan or is there something else?

# Answer
> 5 votes
> Help your pieces so they can help you.

Source: Paul Morphy.

The situation you describe is quite common. You find yourself in a position where there is no clear course of action. In these cases, I urge you to:

1. Identify your worst placed piece
2. Implement a short plan to improve that piece (no longer than 3 moves)

In the example below, which is position 41 of the quizzes in *Mastering Chess Strategy* by Johan Hellsten, we see that it's an early middle game with no major attacking or defensive duties for either side. Neither are there simplifying opportunities.

With White to move, we note that the a1-Rook is not doing anything. How can we activate it? Well, Rooks belong on open or semi-open files. The f1-Rook is already on a semi-open file, so it would be great to play Rae1. But the Queen is in the way. This led to the following plan being executed:

```
[FEN "2bq1r1k/rp4pp/p1p3n1/5p2/3P4/1BP2N1P/PP4P1/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[White "Kristjansson"]
[Black "Sokolov"]

  1. Qd2            b5
  2. Rae1           Qd6

```

---

If you find that you really can't decide on a move, then

> When in doubt, move a piece, not a pawn.

Source: *The Wisest Things Ever Said About Chess* by Andrew Soltis.

This is because if the piece move is poor, you can often rectify the mistake by moving it back. Not so with pawns.

In this example (game 149 of *Mastering Chess Strategy*), the centre is closed implying that play should be on the wings, so White plays 1. a4?!, instead of the flexible 1. O-O\* (the King is almost certain to castle kingside anyway, and this also prevents Black's queenside play). The problem with 1. a4 is that Black gets a big space advantage and his King is still stuck in the middle, whereas 1. O-O doesn't suffer from this. Let's take a look:

```
[FEN "1rbq1rk1/1p1nbppp/p2p1n2/2pPp3/2P1P3/P1NB1N1P/1P3PP1/R1BQK2R w KQ - 0 1"]
[White "Gurevich"]
[Black "Piket"]

  1. a4 (1. O-O b5 2. cxb5 axb5 3. Nxb5 Nxe4 4. Na7)            Nh5
  2. Ne2            g6
  3. g4             Ng7
  4. Bh6            Nf6
  5. Ng3            Kh8
  6. Qc2            Bd7
  7. a5             b5
  8. axb6ep         Qxb6
  9. Ra2            a5

```

---

Last but not least, regarding planning. Yes, it is advisable to have a series of short term plans (usually 3 moves or so) and to remain alert to tactical opportunities and threats. From John Nunn's *Understanding Chess Middlegames* on the section called *Losing the Thread* (emphasis is mine):

> Typical symptoms of this \[playing poorly from a superior position\] are **planlessness**, playing from move to move without any overall strategy, and spending too much time on moves.

---

\*OK, castling isn't exactly a reversible decision, but it is more flexible, in the example position, than 1. a4?!

# Answer
> 1 votes
Gah.

Go to Amazon and do a search for "Complete Chess Course" and purchase a used copy of either Fred Reinfeld's or I.A. Horowitz' book. It is right up your alley. They teach you classic chess in a course format and that gives you a good footing. You'll make simple moves that make sense.

You gotta walk before you run.

Recommended - Link: https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Chess-Course-Beginning-Reinfeld/dp/1941270247

# Answer
> 1 votes
The reponse for this situation you described, in which every chess player found himself, shoud be learning how to make a **strategy**

As GM Savielly Tartakower said :

> *Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do; strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do*

You have to ask yourself "What am I going to do to win this game ?"

Your can decide that your strategy will be a direct attack on the king, or that you will try to gain a positional advantage (this decision can be determined by the position, but also by you playing style). It's the part of the game when you have to take time for thinking and coming with an idea.

Then, when you have a strategy, you will need to build a **tactic** to fulfill it and the question here is "How am I going to do it ?" (actually, the succession of moves you will play) Is there an exploitable fail in your opponent pawn structure ? a hole that can be occupied by one of your pieces ? is there a weakness in the king's defense ? etc.

> *Strategy require toughts, tactics require observation* (Max Euwe)

So my advice is to look for books about GM's startegies, thinkings and ways of coming with a plan and to learn from them.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Start by making a plan based on the assumption that your opponent will "waste" moves, e.g. by moving the same piece back and forth between two squares until directly threatened. Opponents have been know to do this, especially novices.

For instance, in the first position shown in Bad Bishop's answer, White has several things he wants to do. 1) "Connect" his rooks by moving his queen off the first rank (e.g. Qd2). 2) Strengthen his control of the e file by moving a rook there (R a1- e1) after the queen move, since his f rook is already doing good work on the f file 3) move Ne5 to gain control of that square. If Black exchanges, knights, recapture with the e1 rook, and you have a "big" piece on a strong central square (Black has no black squared bishop to chase it off e5).

The Black moves given in the example, b5 and Qd6 are "passive" and don't counter White's "creeping" centralization.

Chess is basically a "race." You and your opponent start with "level" positions at the beginning. This can be true even early in the midgame when you are "neither attacking nor defending." There's always something to do. The only question is can your opponent prevent you from doing it (in the above example, the answer is no). Whoever activates his pieces and executes first is likely to win.

---
Tags: strategy, beginner, defense, attack, development
---