# Question
Title: Help for beginning player to start learning openings
Hi and thanks in advance for any help.

Basically, I've been playing chess on and off for a long time, but only casually. Im not a beginner as such, but I only play against friends and occasional online games and never really studied chess seriously. According to Shredder im around 1200-1300 rating so nothing special.

I've never really studied openings seriously, and I've got to the stage where I'd like to try and learn a little more seriously to improve my game. The problem I have is, whilst I can play reasonably against the very common openings, I've really no idea how to play against more unusual openings.

As a rough idea of my play at the moment, I generally play Giuoco Piano, Evans Gambit, Scotch etc type games as white, almost always 1 e4 games. As black I play the same against 1 e4 or I try and play a KID type game against 1 d4 but again when my opponent plays other types of openings I'm pretty much guessing how to respond.

Can anyone suggest how I might go about getting better at openings. Should I choose a handful of particular openings and try to find out more, or should I try and learn more about opening theory in general? Any recommended books or websites you can recommend? Any tips from when you were in my position and wanted to become better with openings?

Thanks! :)

# Answer
> 7 votes
It's important to know the main openings and their *ideas*, but there are some don'ts here.

* Don't study obscure or excessive lines under the impression that not knowing these rare lines will result in poor play (it doesn't).
* Don't study opening *moves* without understanding *the ideas behind the moves*.
* Don't fall into the trap of learning hundreds of opening lines in order to gain an advantage of 0.2 pawns, only to drop a piece to a simple tactic in the middlegame. One of the best coaches in the world for beginners, National Master Dan Heisman, said:

> It does not matter who gets the advantage out of the opening if one of the players is likely to lose a piece to a simple tactic in the middlegame. Losing a piece from an advantageous position will almost always result in a lost position. **So study tactics, not openings, until you almost never lose pieces to simple tactical motifs.**

# Answer
> 2 votes
The real question is not "which" openings you should study, but "how" you should study the openings. As such, there are several options available to you.

1. You can try and view the Openings Explorer that comes built in, in all reputable chess engines (chessmaster, fritz etc). This will help you cram up the lines, but I don't think you will get the idea of "why" these lines are declared as standard by the masters.
2. You can set up a board with the opening you want to learn playing against. Now instead of sitting on your side, rotate the board and see things from your opponent's point of view. See what you can do if you had this position. What would be your strategy? What are your strengths and weaknesses? Only after you get the first hand experience of an opening, you would be able to counter it properly.

In my opinion, if you have never faced a Ponziani (also known as English Knights Game 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 ) as black, it can quickly turn into your worst nightmare. Grandmasters rarely (if ever) play that opening as it puts white's piece activity at a slow speed, but it's one of the most dreadful weapons in white's hands, if it's black's first time facing it. It comes with a whole plethora of surprise attacks, poisoned pawns and tactical opportunities. I suggest you learn this opening (as white). I have devastated many better rated players within the first 15 moves with this opening. Very strongly recommended. However if black has an in-depth understanding of all Ponziani lines, then you will end up either one pawn down or lacking development by move 10. So it's sort of a gamble. Keep that in mind.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Hah! When I was at a lower level, I used to play 1. Nf3 2. b3 just so my opponent's memorized opening would be useless. When I started to get better, my opening study would basically consist of making moves that made sense to me, and then looking into books or playing against the computer to find out what I missed. These days, I do tend to know a bit more about my Black openings against 1.e4 because they are the most tactical, and I do have some books on them, but I didn't learn the opening from the book, I learned it from trying it myself, and then bought books that talked about common themes in the opening (moves that work, traps to watch out for, games that demonstrate good ideas), and less about memorization of some wierd move order.

Middlegame positional books will probably help a lot more than a dictionary of opening moves.

---
Tags: opening, beginner
---


title: Chess book for kids (9-11 y.o.)

text:
# Question
Title: Chess book for kids (9-11 y.o.)
Are there any chess books accessible for kids in the 9-11 age range that don't waste the first half of the book teaching how the pieces move, castling rules and en passant capture? I am expecting some basic principles of opening theory, strategies for the middle game (pawn structure, open files, long diagonals, doubled rooks, rook on 7th rank etc.), tactics (skewer, fork, discovered attack) and end game tips.

# Answer
Winning Chess Strategy for Kids by Coakley is EXACTLY what you want.

Barely a few pages explaining basics. Then tons of practical content that even adults will find useful. Wastes no time in getting intermediate lessons in strategy/tactics presented in an astonishingly kid-friendly way. :)
> 7 votes

# Answer
How to Beat Your Dad at Chess

Covers checkmates. If kids can't win a won game, they won't get good feedback even if they do everything else correctly. If they try to checkmate each other, everything else follows naturally (until they start to fall into endings, when it is time to pick up a good ending book).
> 2 votes

# Answer
***A First Book of Morphy*** illustrates 30 basic principles described by grandmaster Fine in his "Chess the Easy Way" with games played by Morphy, the first chess genius and American champion. It's well suited for players rated under 1000.

http://www.amazon.com/First-Book-Morphy-Frisco-Rosario/dp/1412039061
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, endgame, books, middlegame, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Is allowing takebacks in friendly games a bad practice?
When I am playing friendly games with my brother, if one of us makes a big blunder that would make it pointless to continue playing, instead of quitting, we undo the move(s) to give a second chance (if we both agree, otherwise the one that did the blunder loses).

We do it frequently and the fun seems to increase since we can keep playing a balanced game.

But is this a good habit? Are there negative consequences of doing this?

# Answer
Getting *too* used to playing with takebacks could be somewhat detrimental if you were to transition to tournament chess at some point, since it downplays the importance of keeping your guard up and being vigilant about tactical possibilities in positions. Nevertheless, I think that in the setting you indicate playing with occasional takebacks (especially for really major blunders) is an instructive way to go, and so can be a good short-term practice for your long-term understanding of the game.

When some terrible blunder happens in your friendly games, there are basically three choices:

1. Resign and start anew.
2. Play on in a very lopsided (and probably not so instructive) position.
3. Take the blunder back and pick a different way to proceed.

Only the third option forces you to return to the position where the mistake was made and figure out something better to do, which in turn requires you to determine the nature of the mistake that was made in the first place. This is a good thing to do, at least if you want to emphasize learning over the competitive results of your friendly games.
> 34 votes

# Answer
I'll buck the trend here and say it's a bad idea to give takebacks if the blundering player intends to play in tournaments at any point in the future.

There are two reasons for this.

First, having to finish a blundered game brings home the pain of that blunder more clearly, and makes it more likely that the player will think ahead next time.

But even more importantly, a blunder isn't the same thing as a loss. Especially in games between young kids, it's quite possible that *both* sides will make *several* blunders during a game. Perhaps you make a terrible move and lose your queen. A few moves later your *opponent* may make a terrible move and lose *his* queen. And suddenly the game is reasonably winnable again.

Until you're at grandmaster level, there's no such thing as a game not worth finishing. The other player could blunder; he could run out of time; he could finish with a king and two bishops and not know how to checkmate that way. Learning to finish the game you start, even if it seems hopeless, is very important at lower levels of chess skill.
> 14 votes

# Answer
Here is a list of important points:

**Pros:**

* Both can continue playing and have fun without the need of starting a whole new game.

**Cons:**

* You don't take blunders seriously and increase the chance of making them on tournaments or important games.
> 13 votes

# Answer
I would say it's a bad habit, if it affects the final result. If you make a move on the board, you must accept the consequences. If you make a blunder and it obviously destroys your position - be a gentleman and admit you've lost the game. Of course you can keep playing, but would you consider yourself a winner if your opponent accepts your takeback request, you make a better move and finally outplay him (outplay as in "even if he doesn't make any obvious blunders like you did")?
> 6 votes

# Answer
My opinion: bad habit. Never ask for a takeback (unless it was a mouse slip online).

If it's a dreadful move then learn from it. If it's only a piece or a rook then it will force you to be resourceful to try and get the game back. You'd be surprised how often this is possible with the right mental attitude. This is a very useful skill.

"It happened, I haven't lost, he's going to be cocky, let's setup some traps to bring it back".

The sign of a good player is one who makes a blunder and doesn't event break sweat, your opponent might even start second guessing "Is there a deep sacrifice here I've missed".

Exception: If you are playing someone clearly weaker than you, and they make a blunder (in a friendly). Make a note of the position and go back to it after the game.
> 6 votes

# Answer
As evidenced by the previous answers, it has its good and bad points. Primarily, you don't suffer the consequences of your bad moves.

However, if you want, you can use it as a teaching tool (for either of you), in that you can see that the move you were contemplating (or the one that you missed) had horrendous consequences, why, and then you can go back and try another line.

One way that you could limit the impact is like the concepts of mulligans in golf. Usually a player gets one per round, or alternatively, one per 9 holes, where you can play a bad shot over. You could limit the number of "moveagains" to one or two per player, and if you goof after that, well, you're out of luck.
> 5 votes

# Answer
One rule that I have used: The person who makes the blunder has to concede a "first game."

But gets to "start" a "second" game, from before where the blunder took place.

This rule allows you to finish the game from a reasonable, balanced position, while inflicting a loss for the blunder.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I would say not; it's only games with your brother. Or think of it this way: does taking pieces away prior to starting the game increase the odds of you winning games?
> 4 votes

# Answer
It is a bad habit, if you want to improve your chess. The downside of allowing a second chance after a blunder is that you do not practice remaining focused during the entire game. Blunders occur when you lose concentration or when you fail to see what the opponent can reply. Learning to identify and avoid blunders is a key skill to reach success in chess (e.g. check out the Blumenfeld's Rule). Blunders cause decisive results on all levels. If your goal is to improve your chess skills, you should stop giving takebacks and practice being more focused. Accept blunders as a natural part of chess. Blunders will give you victories, but they will also cause some of your losses. One advice is to continue playing after a blunder the whole way until checkmate. That way, the blunder might remain better in memory and you will be more careful in the next game. Also, you get to practice your skills in defending a worse position. This is an extremely useful skill that is ignored by many and mastered by few.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Late to answer, but I do find it useful when trying to teach/learn about positional play. By allowing players to take back blunders, they learn to outplay their opponents positionally as opposed to just attacking and waiting for their opponent to make a mistake.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Generally,

Always asking for takeback (it's not a good practice)

1. will increase the blunders in your future/current games.
2. decrease your confidence.
3. will be a barrier to improving your calculation ability.

Allowing takebacks (it's a good practice)

1. will help you to find more challenges in your game .
2. will force you to find more better variations/solutions.

Finally,

* If your friend is an absolute beginner allowing take back may help them to learn chess tactics quickly.
* If your friend is an improving player allowing take back will not help any more .
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, training, etiquette, best-practice, blunder
---


title: The Ponziani - What are the plans?

text:
# Question
Title: The Ponziani - What are the plans?
We live in a strange country. Instead of having championships for all group ages(U10, U12, etc) they just place everyone in a tournament and ship the top people of each group-age. I am third best in the U18(not because I'm a born talent, but because of lack of talents), and I have two competitors. The Nr.1 has beaten several IMs, the second one just got a 2070 rating in his first tournament ever, so you realize my situation. Not only do I have to face them in my group age, but also several other talented kids. So to make sure, I am going to use an offbeat, yet great opening, the Ponziani. I am sure no one knows this.

I have seen several opening lines of this, but I want to know what are the plans in the:

* Nf6 variation
* d5 variation
* f5 variation
* Other minor variations

# Answer
> 6 votes
The Ponziani move order is that shown on the board below:

```
[Fen ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3

```

With 3. c3, White aims to:

* Prepare the pawn push d4
* Avoid the Ruy Lopez & Italian game lines, though transpositions can occur
* The down side of this non-developing move is that the queen-side knight is deprived of its best square. White often sacrifices material or structure (by accepting an isolated Queen's pawn) to develop.

In response to this, Black has 3 main moves.

**3...Nf6**

```
r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/4p3/4P3/2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3

3...Nf6 4. d4

```

Now, Black can accept the gambit with 4...Nxe4. Play goes 5. d5 Ne7. 5...Nb8 is also played, but less often than 5...Ne7. White's plan here is as with an gambit - build a development lead, keep the initiative & attack.

Or, he can accept the pawn with 4...exd4. Play goes 5. e5 Ne4 6. Qe2 d(f)5 7. exd(f)5 e.p., opening the position. White often gets an isolated Queen's paw position in these lines, which should be played like a gambit (keep the initiative, avoid trades & attack).

Lastly, Black can play 4...d5, leading to a complex game with lots of central tension. Play goes 5. Bb5 aims to develop & prepare tactics based on the theme of removing the defender.

**3...d5**

```
r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/4p3/4P3/2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3

3...d5 4. Qa4

```

Play can go 4... Qd6 5. Na3 (preparing to attack the Queen) Nf6 6. Nb5 Qe7 7. d3, and White has better development, a space advantage & a solid structure.

Play can also become very complicated with 4... Bd7 exd5 5. Nd4, where Black is trying to develop with tactics against the Queen.

**3...f5!?**

```
r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/4p3/4P3/2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3

3...f5 4. exf5 Qf6

```

This is a gambit with play similar to the Latvian gambit.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I want to open with. I can't answer the question.

BUT

I'm watching this video on youtube based upon your question and found it interesting and full of opinion. IF you have not seen it, perhaps something in it will give you what you are looking for. Due to my reputation being below 15 I can't comment, which I would have done, if I could have. So apologies for posting this as an answer. Look forward to somebody actually answering this.

here's the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v\_caorxTE2w

# Answer
> 0 votes
This book might help - Play the Ponziani by Dave Taylor.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Play-Ponziani-Everyman-Chess-Taylor/dp/1857446208

# Answer
> 0 votes
I have played the Ponziani a lot. There are indeed a lot of ways in which black can hurt himself and fall a victim to tactics.

The line 3...Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 Nd5 can lead to many complications for white. There are little opportunities here for white and he must proceed very carefully. I have lost several games (as white) on this line. Most other lines lead to a lot of open space and pressure building by white.

---
Tags: opening, theory, strategy
---


# Question
Title: What material handicap would be required to compensate for a single double-move?
Consider the following **chess variant:**

* Black can, *once per game*, make two moves in a row (the second move may not capture the King)
* To compensate for this advantage, Black gets a material handicap
* Otherwise, the standard rules of chess apply

The question is, **approximately what material handicap would be needed for the game to become roughly balanced?** It is clear that making two consecutive moves, even only once per game, is a tremendous advantage. My guess is that at least a Queen handicap is necessary, since it is trivially easy to capture White's Queen with two consecutive moves once the pieces are out.

Has this chess variant been studied before?

# Answer
> 4 votes
The question can never be answered in a general fashion. Every move has its own perks and advantages. The major variables are these:

Is the same piece allowed to move twice or can black move two pieces once?

Are captures allowed? With just one move of the king's pawn already made, it is possible for any party to capture the opponent's queen within two moves. (Or put them in a position where it cannot escape capture in the next few moves). Here the price for two moves is AT LEAST a queen (since the two moves party would not only have captured the queen, but also invaded inside the enemy ranks).

Starting from midgame, two moves can easily put the opponent in a mate-in-x position where they cannot avoid mate. For example, if one has several mating combinations available, there can be no possible compensation to that!

All in all, I think the option of two moves can/should be made available only in the opening and the price is the queen. It is disastrous and potentially game-losing to allow the opponent double moves in the middlegame or endgame and there can be no compensation to that.

# Answer
> 2 votes
My feeling is that a queen would be too much.

My reasoning is that without a queen it is very unlikely that the double move will ever lead to a winning attack. So at one point the double move will have to be used to "win" the queen, but if white takes care to always protect the queen this will probably lose some material.

Something materially equivalent like both rooks strikes me as better, because it doesn't impede blacks dynamical chances in the same way. Possibly rook+knight or rook+bishop would be even more balanced.

# Answer
> -3 votes
In most opening gambits, a pawn is worth two tempi(Two moves). So I guess that a pawn would be fine. To be more precise, the f pawn. I think that is the most logical way.

But yet there remains a problem. I can mate you like this:

```
  [Title "White to move"]
  [fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

  1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 I use the move now 3.Qf3 h6 4.Qxf7#

```

I used h6 as a waiting move to show that a double move is made.

In a similar way, a player can trap or take a big piece, such as a queen.

So the rules so far:

1. White(Or black) lacks his f pawn.
2. The person with the right to double move cannot mate. If a mate is inevitable, he cannot use the double move.
3. The person with the right to double move cannot take a piece. If taking a piece is inevitable, he cannot use the double move.

About check now. I do personally think that if you are checked, the double move doesn't count, so:

1. The person with the right to double move cannot check. If a check is inevitable, he cannot use the double move.

```
 [Title "White to move"]
 [fen "rnbq1rk1/pppp1p1p/5BpQ/4p3/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RN2KBNR w KQ - 0 1"]

```

But there are also positions like this. So this idea comes up:

1. Right after the double move, the non-double move player can exchange one of his pieces for a piece of equal value. You can exchange a bishop for a knight. You cannot exchange say, two rooks for a queen and pawn.

So I think that this is the best way to answer your question.

Hope it helps.

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


title: Unknown Knight move

text:
# Question
Title: Unknown Knight move
I'm playing as white against a cpu. Black has a knight on A7, which he moved to D4 to capture my queen. How is this possible? I've been playing chess for almost 20 years and I have never seen ir heard of this move. Is this a special knight move? What is it called?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Without further context, I can simply say that the move you described is not a legal knight move in any position or circumstance. It is, however, a legal move for a bishop. Perhaps you mistook the bishop for a knight.

If you could supply the PGN of the game, it would clear up some confusion.

---
Tags: online-chess
---


# Question
Title: In how many cases of K, P vs. K, N, N endings can the stronger side force checkmate?
For instance, it wouldn't be possible if the Pawn was on the verge of queening. But is it always possible if the Pawn started off on its original square? Is it usually possible? Or is it only rarely possible? How is it accomplished?

# Answer
> 13 votes
Let's assume that white is the side with the two knights, and black has the single pawn. The endgame study composer A. A. Troitzky gave an analysis (in a lengthy supplement to his 1937 *Collection of Chess Studies*) that established what is now known as the "Troitzky line":

So long as a white knight has the black pawn securely blockaded on one of these squares (or further back), then white can win *no matter the other arrangement of the pieces*. Now there are also times when white can still win with the pawn already advanced beyond the Troitzky line, *but then it usually depends on the location of the black king*; that is, the board usually breaks down into a drawing region for the black king, and a losing region for the black king. Establishing that was also part of Troitzky's work.

---

I'd be way out of my depth trying to say anything about the details of Troitzky's analysis, and besides, he spent a good 60 pages or so working out the things that he did. But it's not too hard to get the conceptual idea behind the Troitzky line. The most basic winning approach for white is this: to blockade the pawn with one knight, then use the king and other knight to corner the black king, and finally release the pawn to move while bringing the blockading knight in to deliver checkmate.

In order for this to work, white needs a fortuitous combination of (1) the pawn not being too quick to queen, and (2) the white knight not being too slow to deliver checkmate. Since the knight is most mobile - has the most travel options - in the center of the board ("A knight on the rim is dim" and all that), it stands to reason that the further away from the center the knight starts, the more time it will need for a win to be guaranteed in general, and so the further back the pawn needs to be from queening. This reality is reflected pretty clearly in the inner V shape of the Troitzky line.

But what about those far advanced rook pawns in the Troitzky line? Well, as often happens with rook pawns, they lead to special cases. Here, the reason white has this additional leeway is because of Stamma's mate, as is pointed out, for instance, in section 35.03 of this article on ChessCafe by Karsten Müller (of *Fundamental Chess Endings* fame).

---

One caveat in all this is that the Troitzky line does not take into account the 50-move rule; though there are wins in all those cases, some of them take longer than 50 moves to convert against perfect play. In the article I just mentioned, Müller raised the question of determining a "second Troitzky line" that does take the 50-move rule into account. And in a followup article he announced that Helmut Conrady solved that problem by using Rafael Andrist's Wilhelm program to analyze the Nalimov tablebases. This second Troitzky line is

So if a white knight securely blockades the black pawn on one of these squares (or further back), then white can always win in under 50 moves. Note that while there's no guarantee of a 50-move win with either a b- or g-pawn, Conrady's analysis also showed that if the pawn is blockaded on b6/g6 or further back (as in the first Troitzky line), then *for over 99% of the possible positions there is a win in under 50 moves*.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Not exactly an answer, but comments on the question and following post.

(a) It *is* possible in certain cases with the pawn on the verge of queening. See the positions shown in the section "Role of the pawn in two knights v pawn ending" here (there are others).

(b) There are exceptions to the Troitzky line rule as stated. See "Proposed changes to the Troitzky line article" here The positions shown also answer in the negative your question regarding pawns on their starting squares.

(c) The second Troitzky line rule tells you nothing about the win within the 50 move rule if some moves are needed to effect the blockade. E.g. the pawn can be securely blockaded on c5 in the position below, but I don't *think* white can win under the 50 move rule (I don't have a DTM50 database to check that).

```
K1k5/8/8/2p5/4N3/8/8/N7 w - - 0 1

```

(d) Further to (c), it is stated that Helmut Conrady solved the problem using the Nalimov databases. I'm not saying he didn't, but this would have been extremely difficult using the Nalimov databases at the time because the databases took no account of the 50 move rule and the play they suggest can be incorrect for either side if the 50 move rule *is* taken into account.

(e) All of the exceptions to the Troitzky line noted in (b) are, of course, also exceptions to the "second Troitzky line" rule. Though one is shown on the knight's file it can be relocated two files to the Queen's side and remain an exception.

---
Tags: draw, pawns, knights, knight-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Second Troitzky line, where knight and pawn could be located?
I am trying to understand where the pieces should be located for the second Troitzky line (checkmate 2 knights vs a pawn in 50 moves limit) and fail to get it. So from wikipedia:

> Black's pawn is blocked by a white knight on or behind one of the dots, White can force a win within fifty moves. If the pawn can be blocked on or behind one of the Xs, White can force a win within fifty moves more than 99 percent of the time.

The problem is that I still can not understand where the pawn and a blocking knight could be located.

Just to resolve ambiguity: I do not need to know how should white force a mate, I just need to understand which positions are possible to win with 50 moves rule. For example, are these positions a theoretical win?

```
[FEN "8/8/2p1N2k/8/2N5/5K2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

,

```
[FEN "8/8/8/1N2pk2/1N6/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

```

,

```
[FEN "8/N7/6k1/7p/8/8/8/1K5N w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
This has been already solved by Helmut Conrady, his elegant 15-page solution is available here.

It is filled with diagrams and examples as you wanted. Let me know if you have any questions regarding the diagrams or explanations given.

**EDIT:** In reply to the edited version of the question and the three positions added:

For the position to be winnable under 50 moves, there are two simple conditions:

* Either the black pawn is blocked by the knight on the 5th ranked
* Or the pawn is blocked on either b6/b7 squares or on g6/g7 squares.

This means:

* **First position** Winning for white in 50 moves because the pawn on c6 isn't advanced enough and is already blockaded, so no hope for black.
* **Second position** Draw because white cannot win it under the 50 moves limit, as no matter what he tries in the current position, the pawn will get the chance to go past the 5th rank. White isn't in time to block the pawn, two examples:

First:

```
[Title "pawn will advance to 4th"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[FEN "8/8/8/1N2pk2/1N6/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nd6+ Kf4 2.Nd5+ Kf3 3.Nf5 e4

```

Second:

```
[Title "pawn will advance to 4th"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[FEN "8/8/8/1N2pk2/1N6/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nd6+ Ke6 2.Ne4 Kf5 3.Ng3+ Kf4 4.Kf2 e4

```
* **Third position**: Draw: easy enough to see that white can't stop the immediate advance of the pawn past the 5th, so white cannot win under 50 moves.

In order to conclude, although if one of the conditions is fulfilled white will have a theoretical win under 50 moves, but that is only possible if no tempo is lost usually, so techniques like triangulation are continuously applied, as shown in the examples of the link.

# Answer
> 1 votes
My understanding is that for, say, the d5 dot, that would be a white knight on d4 and a black pawn on d5. The pawn could also be farther back, of course, and the knight can be on d5 or d6 if it is still blocking the pawn.

The same holds for the Xs but it doesn't quite guarantee a victory considering the 50-move rule.

Edited with responses to your diagrams:

```
[FEN "8/8/2p1N2k/8/2N5/5K2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

White wins, no matter whose move it is. The pawn can be stopped at either c5 or c6, both of which are behind the second Troitzky line.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/1N2pk2/1N6/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

```

Draw, no matter whose move it is. The pawn will move to e4, which is past the second Troitzky line.

```
[FEN "8/N7/6k1/7p/8/8/8/1K5N w - - 0 1"]

```

Draw, no matter whose move it is. The pawn will move to h4, which is past the second Troitzky line.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The second Troitzky line rule as stated in the link given in the first answer (Dr. Müller's article) is in need of clarification.

Unless the phrase "securely blockaded" is taken to mean blockaded by a knight which is protected *by the other knight* then the rule must be wrong (see "Proposed changes to the Troitzky line article" section here).

The diagrams in the link appear to be just the second half of Dr. Müller's exposition on the ending, *not* illustrating the rule.

If "blockaded" is defined as in Wikipedia and as assumed in the second answer, then moves leading up to the blockade (or positions with a gap between pawn and blockading knight) are not taken into account by the rule, so the rule gives no answer in any of the positions shown. What is needed is the number of moves to mate on the squares rather than a dot (the moves being calculated on a DTM50 basis). This seems to invalidate both previous answers if they are based solely on the rule.

The rule *doesn't* say that White cannot win if the pawn passes the line, only not always. This also seems to invalidate both previous answers if they are based solely on the rule.

I believe there are now Syzygy DTM50 EGTBs which will give the answer in any given position. The first position (either side to play) is a win for white because it's under 50 moves with DTM play.

Play in this ending becomes horribly complicated when the 50 move rule is taken into account. A good exposition can be found here

---
Tags: endgame, theory, knight-endgame, 2knights-vs-pawn-endgame
---


title: Feedback on a game

text:
# Question
Title: Feedback on a game
I just played this game with white.

I am wondering, if any of the sides have gone terribly wrong/blundered anywhere? (except for both sides playing a dubious gambit - let's begin considerations from, say, move 10)

I am also interested to know about correctness of play in the endgame (from move 23) and general feedback about the game as a whole. A comment about final position - black probably should not have resigned. Although it is a tablebase win, it is very tough one and takes 48 moves.

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3 exf4 4. Bc4 Be7 5. d4 Bh4+ 6. g3 fxg3 7. O-O gxh2+ 8. Kh1 d6 9. Bxf7+ Kf8 10. e5 Bh3 11. Nxh4 Bxf1 12. Qxf1 Qxh4 13. Bd5+ Nf6 (13... Ke8 14. Qf7+ Kd8 15. Qf8+ Kd7 16. e6+#) 14. exf6 gxf6 (14... Qxf6 15. Qxf6+ gxf6 16. Bh6+ Ke7 {unclear?}) 15. Nc3 Nxd4 16. Ne4 f5 (16... Nxc2 17. Nxf6 {white is better?}) 17. Bg5 Qh5 18. Bf6 Nxc2 (18... fxe4 19. Bxh8+ Ke8 20. Bxd4 Qxd5 {white is better?}) 19. Bxh8 Nxa1 20. Nf6 Qg6 (20... Qh4 21. Qxf5 (21. Qe2 {seems to win even faster, threatening Nd7+# or Qe6 with mate to follow}) {white is winning - there is a mating net around the black king and the white king will eventually escape checks from the black queen (starting with 21... Qe1+)})  21. Qxa1 Qg1+ {is this black's only option?} 22. Qxg1 hxg1=Q+ 23. Kxg1 Ke7 24. Bg7 c6 25. Bb3 d5 26. Nh5 Rg8 27. Kf2 b6 28. Kf3 Kd6 29. Kf4 Ke6 30. Bc2 Kf7 31. Be5 Rg2 32. Bxf5 c5 33. Bxh7 d4 34. b4 Rh2 35. Kg5 Rxa2 36. Nf4 Rf2 37. Be4 Ke7 38. Bd3 a5 39. bxc5 bxc5 40. Bb5 Rb2 41. Bc6 Rb1 42. Kf5 Rf1 43. Ke4 Rg1 44. Kd5 Rg5 45. Ne6 Rg8 46. Nxc5 d3 47. Nxd3 Rd8+ 48. Kc4 Rc8 49. Kb5 a4 50. Bb2 Kd6 51. Ba3+ Ke6 52. Nb4 Ke5 53. Kxa4 Ke6 54. Kb5 Rd8 55. Kc5 Kf5 56. Nd5 Ke6 57. Bb2 Rf8 58. Bd4 Rc8 59. Nf4+ 1-0

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
I ran the game through Stockfish at 5 minutes per move. Here are a few key moves.

```
15...Nxd4?? +-
+3.34 / +0.00
( 15...Re8 16.Bf4 Nxd4 17.Bg3 Qg5 18.Bf4 Qg1+ 19.Qxg1 hxg1=Q+ 20.Rxg1 = )

```

What we see here is that with this move, Black goes from an even game to being down a piece. Black maintains parity with Stockfish's suggested move (in parentheses above...)

The issue with the move is that exposes all of Black's sins:

1. The Knight is trapped.
2. The Black Queen is unprotected and doesn't coordinate with any other piece.
3. Black's King is flapping in the breeze.

Black in on the edge of death now. Your `f5` is the best response to a bad situation. It was far better than my choices - they all lost instantly to some variation of `Bg5`. For example:

```
[FEN "r4k1r/ppp4p/3p1p2/3B4/3n3q/2N5/PPP4p/R1B2Q1K w - - 0 16"]

1.Ne4 c6?? 2.Bg5

```

And you can see that White's going to smash f6 and the Black King like a freight train. Instead, if Black takes the `e` file with the Rook, White can't develop an attack on the weak `f` pawn.

Here's Stockfish's suggested continuation wherein Black maintains parity:

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[title "After 15. Nc3"]
[fen "r4k1r/ppp4p/2np1p2/3B4/3P3q/2N5/PPP4p/R1B2Q1K b - - 1 15"]

1...Re8 2.Bf4 Nxd4 3.Bg3 Qg5 4.Bf4 Qg1+ 5.Qxg1 hxg1=Q+ 6.Rxg1

```

---

Of course, I goofed up and lost most of the Stockfish analysis. It is fiddly indeed.

Now, on White's 17th, White is basking in the mess Black made for himself with the premature capture on `d4`. Stockfish recommends:

```

[title "After 17.Bg5??"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r4k1r/ppp4p/3p4/3B1pB1/3nN2q/8/PPP4p/R4Q1K b - - 1 17"]

1... Qg4 2.Bh6+ Ke7 3.Bg5+ Kf8

```

and Black escapes with a three-fold repetition because White's about to lose the Knight on `e4` for a pawn. It's protecting the Bishop on `g5` and can't move.

A nice game, full of chances.

# Answer
> 1 votes
As a king's gambit player myself, I just want to note a few things about the very first moves:

Combining Nc6 and exf4 is actually playable though very much a sideline. Reacting with 4.Bc4 however, is a mistake and I think the reasoning behind this is instructive:

4.Bc4 allows black to play 4…g5 without allowing white's standard responses. Nc6 takes e5 away from the Nf3, just like d6 would, so the Kieseritzky isn't possible anymore for white. But after 3…d6 4…g5 would be a well known mistake, because 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6 4.Bc4 g5 5.h4 g4 allows 6.Ng5 with a tremendous attacking position. Nc6 on the other hand doesn't just control e5, it also allows black to defend f7 with tempo in this variation, so 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bc4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng5 Ne5! and black is in time to rebuff the white attack 7.Bb3 h6 8.d4 hxg5 9.dxe5 and black is much better.

Better, and quite logical, would be 4.d4, when a quick d5 is in the air, possibly followed by Qd4.

About the endgame: A tablebase win in 46 moves might sound quite long and complicated, but it probably just means that black has to give his rook for a bishop in a couple of moves, transposing to the well known NBK vs K, which is often still 30+ moves until mate, but rather straightforward (if you know it).

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


# Question
Title: What percent of chess games contain a blunder?
To specify the question a bit:

1. I consider a **blunder** a move which worsens the position by **3 pawns** (300 centipawns) or more. I think this is a pretty good base mark, since a strong computer will generally judge sacrificial moves accurately.
2. Lets only consider **amateur** (\<2100 rating) games, since beyond this, such blunders are very rare

A breakdown by rating would be very nice

EDIT: In consideration of the numerous comments I've decided to tighten the bolts some more on this question.

*Addendum 1*: The question is asking how many **games** out of a pool of games will contain a blunder. Not how many moves **within** a game *are* blunders.

*Addendum 2*: It seems 100 centipawn shifts are common even in master level games, so I have upped the ante to 300 centipawns, these would be blunders that outright lose the game.

*Addendum 3*: I am not asking for how many games are won or lost through a blunder (this is basically impossible to determine), but just how many contain at least one.

# Answer
> 10 votes
I happen to have a dataset with 25000 games with stockfish evaluations after every move. I just did a little blunder search and these are my findings:

Blunders from an equal position (-1.00 \< eval \< 1.00) are very rare, even among weaker players. That is not particularly surprising, because we tend to leave the equality region in little steps during the opening and the blunders come when we are under real pressure and low on time.

* Elo: 1500: 100cp Blunder every 45 moves.
* Elo: 1600: 100cp Blunder every 46 moves.
* Elo: 1700: 100cp Blunder every 50 moves.
* Elo: 1800: 100cp Blunder every 52 moves.
* Elo: 1900: 100cp Blunder every 55 moves.
* Elo: 2000: 100cp Blunder every 59 moves.
* Elo: 2100: 100cp Blunder every 64 moves.
* Elo: 2200: 100cp Blunder every 69 moves.
* Elo: 2300: 100cp Blunder every 74 moves.
* Elo: 2400: 100cp Blunder every 78 moves.
* Elo: 2500: 100cp Blunder every 82 moves.
* Elo: 2600: 100cp Blunder every 85 moves.
* Elo: 2700: 100cp Blunder every 85 moves.

Really big blunders \>300cp from an equal position are even more rare. Which also isn't particularly surprising, after all even if you blunder a full piece you usually get a little something in return.

* Elo: 1500: 300cp Blunder every 223 moves.
* Elo: 1600: 300cp Blunder every 241 moves.
* Elo: 1700: 300cp Blunder every 274 moves.
* Elo: 1800: 300cp Blunder every 299 moves.
* Elo: 1900: 300cp Blunder every 335 moves.
* Elo: 2000: 300cp Blunder every 352 moves.
* Elo: 2100: 300cp Blunder every 381 moves.
* Elo: 2200: 300cp Blunder every 421 moves.
* Elo: 2300: 300cp Blunder every 446 moves.
* Elo: 2400: 300cp Blunder every 479 moves.
* Elo: 2500: 300cp Blunder every 509 moves.
* Elo: 2600: 300cp Blunder every 525 moves.
* Elo: 2700: 300cp Blunder every 530 moves.

If you leave out the requirement of an equal position, the numbers go way up. As opposed to the relevancy ….

* Elo: 1500: 100cp Blunder every 9 moves.
* Elo: 1600: 100cp Blunder every 9 moves.
* Elo: 1700: 100cp Blunder every 10 moves.
* Elo: 1800: 100cp Blunder every 10 moves.
* Elo: 1900: 100cp Blunder every 11 moves.
* Elo: 2000: 100cp Blunder every 12 moves.
* Elo: 2100: 100cp Blunder every 13 moves.
* Elo: 2200: 100cp Blunder every 14 moves.
* Elo: 2300: 100cp Blunder every 14 moves.
* Elo: 2400: 100cp Blunder every 15 moves.
* Elo: 2500: 100cp Blunder every 16 moves.
* Elo: 2600: 100cp Blunder every 16 moves.
* Elo: 2700: 100cp Blunder every 17 moves.

And the bigger blunders:

* Elo: 1500: 300cp Blunder every 23 moves.
* Elo: 1600: 300cp Blunder every 25 moves.
* Elo: 1700: 300cp Blunder every 27 moves.
* Elo: 1800: 300cp Blunder every 29 moves.
* Elo: 1900: 300cp Blunder every 32 moves.
* Elo: 2000: 300cp Blunder every 34 moves.
* Elo: 2100: 300cp Blunder every 37 moves.
* Elo: 2200: 300cp Blunder every 40 moves.
* Elo: 2300: 300cp Blunder every 43 moves.
* Elo: 2400: 300cp Blunder every 46 moves.
* Elo: 2500: 300cp Blunder every 48 moves.
* Elo: 2600: 300cp Blunder every 49 moves.
* Elo: 2700: 300cp Blunder every 50 moves.

Those numbers are a little higher than in the linked blog, that's probably because stockfish likes to throw out big numbers compared to other engines.

To confer to the addendum and the final phrasing of the question (i.e. percentage of games with a 300cp blunder.):

* Elo: 1500: 62 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 1600: 58 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 1700: 53 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 1800: 50 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 1900: 47 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2000: 45 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2100: 41 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2200: 37 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2300: 33 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2400: 29 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2500: 25 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2600: 24 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2700: 24 percent of the games contain a blunder.

With the requirement of an equal position:

* Elo: 1500: 13 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 1600: 12 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 1700: 10 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 1800: 10 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 1900: 8 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2000: 8 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2100: 7 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2200: 5 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2300: 6 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2400: 4 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2500: 3 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2600: 3 percent of the games contain a blunder.
* Elo: 2700: 3 percent of the games contain a blunder.

---
Tags: blunder
---


# Question
Title: What are the winning chances of every pieces? (6men egtb)
Is there a site or document which shows what the winning chances are of every "Specific Pieces vs. Specific Pieces" endgame?

e.g. What are the winning chances of Rook & Bishop vs 2 Knights?

# Answer
I don't know a single source tabulating the winning percentages for all 6-piece endings, but at least some amount of summarizing information can probably be found scattered throughout Nunn's *Secrets of ... Endings* series of books, which are essentially translations from tablebase to human-usable information. But there is a spreadsheet available from Tamplin's chess endgame site, *3-5 Man Results and Maximals*, that contains the percentage winning statistics across all \< 6-man endgames. A sample of the data:

```
Endgame     wtm(=)  btm(=)      wtm(1-0)    btm(1-0)        wtm(0-1)    btm(0-1)

KK          100.00  100.00      0.00        0.00            0.00        0.00
KBK         100.00  100.00      0.00        0.00            0.00        0.00
KNK         100.00  100.00      0.00        0.00            0.00        0.00
KPK         23.49   41.91       76.51       58.09           0.00        0.00
KQK         0.00    10.32       100.00      89.68           0.00        0.00
KRK         0.00    9.97        100.00      90.03           0.00        0.00

...

KRNKP       1.53    17.10       98.45       78.39           0.01        4.51
KRNKQ       41.12   19.71       35.44       2.10            23.43       78.19
KRNKR       63.29   93.60       36.63       3.24            0.07        3.16

...

```

The first, third and fifth numerical columns give the percentage of white-to-move positions that are, respecitively, draws, white wins or black wins. And the other columns give similar information for the black-to-move positions. I'd think it unlikely that a similar table for 6-man positions doesn't already exist out there in the ether somewhere, but I don't know where such is located.

---

**EDIT:** Sure enough, the second edition of Nunn's *Secrets of Pawnless Endings* (and **not** the first edition which predated available 6-man tablebases) does go at least partly toward what you're after. There is a summary table (pp. 325-329) that, while not providing the numerical detail of the table above, does include for each 6-man piece combination at least an indication of whether it is generally won or drawn (presumably based on whether a majority of positions are theoretically won or not, as above), along with information about the longest win and longest reciprocal zugzwang for each ending.

To use your example, Nunn notes that KRBKNN is generally a win for White, while the longest win is 223 moves from the following position:

```
[fen "1K6/5BR1/2n5/2n2k2/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Some of the endings also get discussed in the text. For instance, Nunn gives an optimal line from the above position and attempts to give annotations that make the very complex play involved understandable. (Partial spoiler: `1.Kc8!` is the only winning move at the start.)
> 4 votes

# Answer
On ETD's encouragement, an addendum to his excellent answer.

http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/discussion-board/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6941#p76732 provides a spreadsheet with w/d/l statistics for most common piece combinations from 6-men nalimov tablebases. Screenshot of a part of the spreadsheet below (might have to zoom in..).

**EDIT 2018:** For up to 7 men, Syzygy tables (also with win percentages) are available: https://syzygy-tables.info/
> 3 votes

# Answer
This is end game theory... Usually this comparison is not done in middle game tactics or openings (obviously).

However, my best advice for you is to read about end game books, which completely cover scenarios of rook &bishop vs 2 Knights and MANY MANY other scenarios.

If you want a suggestion, read ***Domination in 2,545 end game studies***. You won't be disappointed and you will find what you want, that I assure you.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: endgame, statistics, tablebases
---


# Question
Title: Attack or defend? Which is best approach to win?
In chess, most people argue that the first to attack wins the game. What is the best approach **early** in a game? Attack or defend?

There are tons of chess materials online, talking about attacking, but I could find only a few lessons on how to defend in chess.

For those who say attacking is the best, I vehemently deny it, as a player who can't defend can be a best chess player. Some say both attack and defence is the best, whilst some say winning is all about in the end game.

What do you think?

# Answer
A lot depends on your opponent. Finding the right moves in defence is generally much easier than finding the right moves in attack.

If you are playing a much stronger player your best chance will be if he attacks you and you can survive the attack. If he doesn't attack then part of the reason will be that he doesn't think he has built up the kind of position that warrants him launching an attack. If you try and attack in that situation then you will likely get beaten quickly. So, the best advice is to try and play openings and positions you are familiar with and concentrate on prophylaxis. Strengthen and reinforce your position. Make sure you don't have any weaknesses and always be alert to your opponents threats and the areas of the board he is building up in. Don't waste too much time looking for chances to attack him.

Conversely when you are playing a much weaker opponent your best chance will be to launch a *sound* attack. If both of you just try and defend there is a much greater chance of the game petering out in a long draw. But the emphasis really is on *sound*. Use your superior positional knowledge and experience to build up a better position with your pieces working together in the area of the board you want to launch your attack from. Don't launch it prematurely or your opponent may be able to defend correctly and successfully and either get the draw or even win on the counterattack!

If you and your opponent are evenly matched again strengthen your position first and build up before any attack. Be on the lookout for chances to attack more than you would against a much stronger player but make sure you do so from a position of strength.

In all 3 cases it is clear that early in the game you should be developing your pieces to good squares and strengthening your position. Sometimes these good squares will be in attacking positions because it makes developing other pieces easier for you and more difficult for your opponent. For example, pinning knights in openings like the Ruy Lopez. But the emphasis should be on building a sound position first and not trying to make a string of attacking moves before your position warrants it.
> 3 votes

# Answer
That's a tricky question. I'd say that beginners should attack whenever they see the opportunity, since they will learn alot about attack, defense, and initiative in chess. That means playing open games and gambits to get a good sense of what it means to have active pieces.

However attacking is much harder to do than defending. To find attacking moves you have to be familiar with a variety of tactical themes, know how to see weakensses, etc. To defend against a specific threat you only need to know five basic ideas (capture, block, move, defend, counterattack).
> 1 votes

# Answer
It depends on the position. For example, in a rook endgame, you should be trying to keep your rook active. But in some positions, any counterattack is tactically defeated (unsafe) and the best plan is to defend. In other situations, you should do neither (e.g. if you have two pieces out and your opponent has none, you should play to keep your lead in development before creating threats).

Attacking/Defending guidelines:

* Meet a flank attack with a counterattack in the center.
* A flank attack is justified if the center is closed and cannot be opened or if you control the center and that is not going to change.
* A premature attack is doomed to failure.

In some positions, it pays to use attack as a method of defense. Attacking pieces are usually ill placed to meet a counterattack.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: psychology
---


# Question
Title: software to analyze my own database of games with statistics
I've been playing on lichess.org for my online games, and is the primary way I enjoy chess. One of the big reasons why I started playing on lichess.org was that they offer a simple way to export your games from their database into pgn format.

So far playing casually I have logged over 250 games at this point and downloaded the pgn files. I'm interested in getting some statistics out of this data. Is there a chess database application that I could use?

The primary goal of analyzing these games en mass is that I want to identify my strengths and weaknesses with my game openings. For example I enjoy playing the queens gambit, but I'd like to know my win percentages with it. Which ECO codes I am currently struggling with, which variants am I coming against most often? Am I truly a tactical player? or a positional player?

I believe that the data can help me identify trends in my game that I am currently unaware of.

I already use engines like crafty and stockfish to help me analyze individual games, but I'm having difficulty finding tools to help me analyze my entire collection.

Any suggestions?

# Answer
There are quite a few programs - commercial (Chessbase, Hiarcs) or free (ChessX, Scid, Scidb, ChessDB, Arena). More or less, all will provide what you need.

I personally prefer ChessX (under MacOS and Windows) using the following steps:

* Open your database
* Select Menu View-\>Players which enables the player explorer
* Filter the games for your own name

You will get a statistics for each ECO code played with White or Black. Now you can tell, which ECOs provide good or poor results. If you need further details or statistics, you can create a ticket on ChessX homepage.
> 7 votes

# Answer
The most popular chess database software is ChessBase. You can open the pgn of your games with ChessBase, and there are functions that produce opening statistics, e.g. the number of times you have faced the Semi-slav/Meran/Moscow-Botvinnik as white, as well as your percentage score against these variations.

ChessBase can also be seen as a GUI for engines, so you can also use your favourite engine (Stockfish/Crafty/Houdini/Komodo) to analyse your games within the program. There is also the "LiveBook", which is essentially a giant opening book stored on the ChessBase servers, as well as computer opening books which tell you which moves are objectively the strongest (but not necessarily most practical --- this is actually for the reference of the engine).
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, software, database
---


title: Commented games for beginners

text:
# Question
Title: Commented games for beginners
I'm looking for a website where we can find annotated games for beginners. I mean games with basic comments and lenght of the game is short. The best would be that we can see the pieces moving but kind of optional.

# Answer
YouTube is a good resource to consider. There is one user in particular that annotates miniatures rather well for beginners, and as a bonus, he sounds like Dracula.

https://www.youtube.com/user/MatoJelic
> 5 votes

---
Tags: beginner, annotation
---


# Question
Title: Can tactics be reduced to a finite number of simple patterns that can be learned?
I realise that there are a finite number of tactical techniques such as forks and skewers and pins but I find them hard to identify in everyday play. I have started using chess.com's tactics trainer and am gradually making progress. However I think that this is ultimately a pattern recognition problem.

So my question is whether it is possible to reduce all of the tactical tricks to a finite set of graphical images that I could stare at and memorise in the same way children learn their letters. I think that this may get my brain to identify these opportunities more quickly when they arise on a chess board.

# Answer
I would say that, indeed, the vast majority of tactics falls into some kind of pattern and there are a number of them but not too many.

In my opinion there are two issues that you need to improve in order to improve tactics in your games. First, you need to know the basic patterns, that is you have to know how they look like and what is the main idea in exploiting them. Often the basic ideas of the pattern cannot be applied out of the box and you will need to find the right moves to actually implement the combination. The second issue is that, of course, you have to spot these patterns on the board and exploit them.

For picking up the patterns a tactics book that presents problems grouped by patterns, together with some explanations how to exploit them, is very useful. E.g. "Tune Your Chess Tactics Antenna". To facilitate the second step, such books often have mixed exercises at the end, where you are not told what the pattern is you should find, but then almost any tactics book with mixed problems will be okay.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I would say yes. You can take any tactical theme, reduce it to its core elements and stare at it, and then you would be more likely to spot it in an actual position with more "noise". I know some tactics books and tactics trainers do the first part of this, where they will show the key theme of the tactic in isolation, and then give a variety of real game examples where this is more noise. Vukovic did that, and CT-ART did that.

I don't know how practical the 'staring' part would be though, and I haven't heard of anyone attempting this before.

Instead of passively staring, another approach to consider is to figure out which specific types of problems you're getting wrong, and then drilling hundreds/thousands of those positions. For example in your question you state you're missing skewers and pins. Well, those are both one type of visual theme having to do with pieces in a line -- could be a pin, skewer, discovered attack, or a fork. I'd setup a training regime to where your task is to find a bunch (say a hundred-ish) very simple positions with pieces in a line. You are essentially overtraining your ability to spot pieces in a line, and you'll get to the point where you're seeing all sorts of things in a line (most of which won't matter, but some of it will).

If you're just starting at chess and are missing them all, then you could take one visual/tactical theme at a time and overtrain each one until you always spot the theme on a board with lots of noise. I'd also try training yourself to always spot undefended positions and exposed/stalemated kings. Those are almost always a major clue that a tactic is hiding somewhere. Knights depend on proximity, color, and certain geometrical patterns you can drill. Bishops obviously depend on color, as well as pieces being in a line, but can also use some geomtrical shapes for certain forks. Pawns really onlly have one tactic (a fork) which clearly depends on proximity (targets one square away...sometimes two) and geometry (targets one square apart). The website chesstactics.org does a good job of breaking down some of the visual elements of tactics in the explanations, and someone else already mentioned the book 'tactical antennae'.

Calculating what to do once you spot something is another matter, but you'll never get to that point if you're not spotting themes in the first place!!
> 0 votes

---
Tags: tactics, training
---


# Question
Title: The Chessboard Editor at Apronus.com --- Is it any good?
I am the webmaster of the online chessboard editor at http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php. I spend about one week each year on maintaining this utility but I never get to work seriously on it. I wonder if perhaps this has some potential that should be exploited.

The specific questions that I want to ask here:

1. Is it useful for playing correspondence games by email?
2. Is it useful for posting static diagrams (just one position image) in blogs and forums?
3. Is it useful for posting dynamic diagrams (showing games or parts of games)?
4. Is it useful for playing against computer from a set up position?
5. Is it useful for posting chess puzzles?

# Answer
> Is it useful for playing correspondence games by email?

I have never tried it.

> Is it useful for posting static diagrams (just one position image) in blogs and forums?

Do you mean something like this? I use it to generate FEN when posting answers here, all the time.

> Is it useful for posting dynamic diagrams (showing games or parts of games)?

Again, I generate the FEN on Apronus, but I post moves here myself. I have never tried to create "a game" and then simply copy/paste it here. If you can show me how, I could try it out and report my results.

> Is it useful for playing against computer from a set up position?

I did generate FEN on Apronus and successfully loaded it into Fritz.

> Is it useful for posting chess puzzles?

Again, it does a good job in generating the FEN, so I can post here any diagram I want.

> The Chessboard Editor at Apronus.com — Is it any good?

Serves me very well so far. I just don't know how to generate "games" and "dynamic diagrams" as you have suggested. That would be an awesome feature to posses, it would save me so much time!

If you need any help or you have followup questions, leave a comment.

Best regards.
> 1 votes

# Answer
A short and partial answer based on recent use by your editor is:

> Is it useful for posting static diagrams (just one position image) in blogs and forums?

Yes, yes it is, and quite a bit. It works nicely and the design is timeless.

> Is it useful for posting dynamic diagrams (showing games or parts of games)?

Indeed, for showing full games with no interaction with the user, the dynamic diagrams work perfectly.

> Is it useful for posting chess puzzles?

The same answer to the first question is valid, as static diagrams may very well in some articles be problems.

I think the editor is quite good for a free one, and I will encourage it's use among my students. If your could improve the quality of the pieces though, that would be nice, as they appear to be quite pixelated.
> 1 votes

# Answer
It is useful for making gifs that shows some variations from the game. I use those to explore endgames. (They're good because I don't need any chess viewer to use them, just smth to view gif.)

Sadly animated gifs doesn't work if ~~one of the board sizes is bigger than 8~~ dimensions are 16\*16. :( It's kinda important because of FICGS chess variations Big Chess.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, pgn
---


# Question
Title: When to decide King or Queen side castling?
How do you decide to castle on king side or on queen side? i know king side is castling is the quicker than queen side with just 4 steps.

Does queen side castling favours more on attack, than compared to king side (defense)??

# Answer
For beginners there are some basic guidelines to castling. In general, choosing the right moment is as important as choosing the right side. Now, the guidelines I know of:

1) If you are playing white, it really depends on the position. Nevertheless, 99% of beginner-friendly opening lines work very well with white castling king-side.

2) If you are playing black, try not to castle before white does. If you do, white, which usually has the initiative in the opening, could attack your king and you will have no definite counter-attack point since white could decide to castle either side. Wait until white castles, and then go for the same side if you can.

3) If you gain some space or development advantage in the opening and your opponent castles before you do, think about castling on the opposite side (if center is open) or not castling at all (if center si closed). To this regard, become familiar with the technique of pawn-storm.
> 2 votes

# Answer
If pawns are more advanced on one side, or there is a material inequality to one side of your opponents pieces, castle opposite the majority of attack.

Typically, king side becomes favored, probably in part because of the property of castling you noted: that it's quicker to king side castle. Well, that and the King isn't as close to the center with King side castling.

Queen side castling is a bit easier to attack from however due to the imabalance of position (ie typically the other king is castled on its' king side).
> 3 votes

# Answer
It strongly depends on the opening and the typical ideas related to that opening. (This is not surprising, as castling can actually be seen as a part of developing the pieces.) A typical example is the Yugoslav attack in the Sicilian Dragon, where the idea of the whole setup of white is to start an attack on the king side. Therefore, white castles on the queen side.

Yet, short castling is much more popular than long castling. The two main reasons are:

1. Castling is often used to put the king on a safer place. The side, where the pawns have already left the second rank, is typically the unsafer side for the king. In 1.d4 openings one often plays 2.c4, which makes the king side a safer place than the queen side.
2. Long castling takes more time. One extra tempo to move the queen out of the way and (often) another tempo to play Kb1/Kb8 to protect the a2/a7 pawn.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Castling opposite sides often results in a race. All attack, no defense, fastest wins. The more time your opponent has wasted the more appealing starting this race gets.
> 2 votes

# Answer
If a file has been opened on the Kingside, say for example by trading your QB for the opponent's KN, then castling on that side might be dangerous. The same would be true on the Queenside. That's pretty simplistic of course. A feature of opposite side castling is that each side will mount an all-out attack on the King position using everything at his disposal, including the pawns. Generally the outcome will depend on "who gets there first with the most", so if you intentionally castle on the opposite side from your opponent, you must be prepared to attack aggressively. And as the other party answering this question has pointed out, castling Queenside leaves a broader pawn expanse in front of the King to defend. Typically an additional K move toward the corner is characteristic of castling Queenside, utilizing an additional tempo. If you haven't been playing that long, I would rely more on Kingside castling for a while as being quicker and safer. Then as you become more experienced you can begin to experiment with Queenside castling. x
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, castling
---


title: Why fianchetto the bishop?

text:
# Question
Title: Why fianchetto the bishop?
Why do people fianchetto the bishop? I know that fianchettoing two bishops (black and white) in b2 and g2 protects the entire black and white diagonals but honestly i never understood these reasons

> 1. What are the fianchettoing advantages and will it improve the position?
> 2. When to fianchetto the bishop?

In my personal experience, I try to fianchetto the bishop when i castle kings side. This greatly sets up a great defense wall.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The answers to your two questions are related.

Fianchettoing a bishop allows the bishop to attack the center from the sidelines, from the second rank. Normally the bishops would have to go to the fourth rank (c4, f4 for white) or the fifth rank (b5 or g5 for white) pinning an enemy knight to have an influence on the center.

If you are going to play a classical opening with d4 or e4 (as white) then you probably want to develop your bishops classically as well to the 4th or 5th ranks, although you can still fianchetto them if you want.

If you are going to play a hyper-modern opening (Reti, Kings Indian, Pirc, etc.) where you cede the center to your opponent (don't challenge your opponent's central pawn moves with your own central pawn moves) then fianchettoing becomes much more important in the fight for control of the center. Not only will the bishop help you fight for the center but the pawn on b3 or g3 (for white) will help you with a further pawn break like c4 or f4 to undermine the opponent's center.

As a defensive move, fianchettoing the bishop on the side where you castle is not so straightforward. It creates weaknesses as well as strengths. If your opponent can force an exchange of the bishop you will be left with weak holes on f3 and h3 (for white kingside castling and fianchetto) and your pawn on g3 can be a target for an aggressive opponent to rapidly push his h pawn to try and embarrass you.

---
Tags: fianchetto
---


# Question
Title: What's the highest rating any computer has ever attained?
Along with that, I'd like to know what the highest rating of any human has ever been - including historical estimates.

# Answer
This page has a lot of good info. Kasparov is the highest at 2851. However, such comparisons are fraught with peril as ratings inflate, and they really can't be compared from era to era. I don't think it will be long before Magnus Carlsen takes the 'highest rating' crown. This won't mean he's stronger than Kasparov at his peak.

Computer ratings are trickier. Rybka 3 claims over 3200 Elo. If this is the true, then only about 6 GMs in the world have a statistical chance of defeating it.

EDIT - that 3200 rating is on specialized hardware. I think on a common (but beefy) PC, the rating is about 100 pts lower. This means that currently there are about 30 players in the world who have a statistical chance of *not losing*. *None* of them have an appreciable chance of winning. Don't be depressed - no human has an appreciable chance of beating a car at a race. Somehow this didn't make track and field less interesting.

EDIT in 2022: Stockfish is now at 3546
> 12 votes

# Answer
According to this source, Computer Chess Champion Komodo has a rating of 3344 in 40/40.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: history, engines, rating
---


# Question
Title: What are the differences between tactical and positional chess?
Does one style of play have an advantage/disadvantage over the other?

Are today's GMs mostly tactical players or positional players?

What GMs should I follow if I want to be more of a tactical player or positional player?

# Answer
> 15 votes
I don't think one style has an advantage, or at the GM level, there would only be one style; the other would be extinct.

The very definition of a tactical player is Mikhail Tal AKA 'The Wizard of Riga.' Others include Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov. Anatoly Karpov and Tigran Petrosian are great examples of positional players.

Fischer himself said that tactics flow from a superior position.

---

Edit: I'd like to add that any of the top players can find the best move in a given situation. Where positional versus tactical considerations come into play is where there isn't a best move, as such. That is, when there are several reasonable candidate moves. Then some players show a positional tendency while others show a tactical tendency. Petrosian, who is probably the most defensive GM, was more than able to uncork *technical savagery* if his opponent let him. However, he preferred to tighten the noose instead of looking for a brilliancy.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Tactical playing style has no advantage on positional playing style, and vice-versa.

Although, a *single player may have a psychological edge on another player with opposite playing style*, in specific situations. In a tournament, for example, if a positional player knows that he's facing a tactical opponent that for some reason needs the full point, may choose a solid system with very few victory chance but no weak points. The tactical player will probably try to force combinations even if the position on the board wouldn't allow such tactics. Then the solid player will only have to defend (supposing he's good at this), and take the full point himself after the opponent's suicide. The same is true also when who needs a full victory is the positional player. He'll try to go for an aggressive play, but he will face a tactical opponent who feels more comfortable in complicated situations, and eventually the positional player will make a blunder and get punished by the opponent.

The key is *not* the advantage that tactical play has over positional play (or positional over tactical). The key is that if you know that you're facing an opponent with a playing style that's the opposite of yours, you should *try to involve him/her in positions he/she doesn't feel comfortable with, while you are*. Mikhail Tal was a master at this: his style was so complicated and filled with tactics that when he managed to catch an opponent in his net he had no escape. Petrosian was a master on the other side, playing sober games, choosing super-positional and kinda-drawish systems so that he'd never lose, and win when opponents tried with no hope to break the wall he built.

# Answer
> 6 votes
As World Champ Magnus Carlsen often says "Having preferences means having weaknesses"

In reality there is no such thing as "positional" or "tactical" style. Objectively, it's simply the degree to which the position calls for calculation. This gradation is only necessary because, unlike computers, humans can tire and cannot look 20 moves ahead in an instant. Thus in quiet positions, we use positional understanding (try to improve our position). In sharp positions we focus on calculation because a single misslip usually costs the game.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I have seen an informal distinction between tactical and positional, or put another way between tactical and strategic play.

Tactical play was described as being what you do when you can force the issue. The play can be calculated and the outcome determined. Many lines in game analysis are of this type usually ending with something like "winning a pawn" or any other concrete goal.

Strategic or positional play was described as being what you do when you don't have anything to do. There are no tactical variations that you can use at the moment and so your play must be of the type to create abstract strengths. You increase king safety, or strengthen your hold on the center, or something similar.

Good positional play puts you in a position to find strategic play. Both are important. If you make a positional move while ignoring the strategic considerations it is a worthless move. I once played and game that my opponent analyzed for me afterward, one of his comments for a particular move was "Amazing this move is as good strategically as it is bad tactically" and I had hung the piece simply giving it away.

The other direction is harder to find but ignoring positional play when making a tactical move is the kind where you gain material but make positional compromises that hurt you. One really good example of this is the famous game know as the "Immortal game". Here the winning player had sacrificed a bishop, both rooks, and his queen. Capturing all that material was tactical advantage but the positional considerations were such that the winner was still able to force a win in the end.

There is even some blurring between the two. You might carry out a tactical combination in order to gain a positional advantage.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There is a lot of confusion concerning the terms "tactical", "positional" and "strategic".

First of all, "strategic" and "positional" are not the same!

Positional thinking consists of static short-term considerations concerning the health of your position. I.e. mostly pawn structure and piece placement. Strategy on the other hand means long-term planning. For example you might play an anti-positional move because it is part of a long-term strategy. Positional play requires a feeling for the position, whereas strategic play requires knowledge, logic and systematic considerations.

Now this "feeling for a position"-thingy makes a lot of people open up a dichotomy between the tactical and the positional player, where the tactical player does concrete calculation and the positional player just feels where to put his pieces.

There is enough truth in this dichotomy to make it a very persistent myth. Unfortunately it breaks down if you look at the reality. Being a strong calculator doesn't mean you are a tactical player and a very intuitive approach doesn't turn you into a positional player.

On the contrary, strong positional play is often based on very accurate calculation and strong dynamic play is often based on an intuitive grasp of the position.

Two examples: Positional genius Tigran Petrosian was well known for his exceptional calculation ability. Attacking wizard Mikhail Tal was able to play crazy positions better than anybody because of an incredible feeling for the dynamics of a position (he was regularly outcalculated by players like Kortchnoi).

From my point of view you need intuition for positional and dynamic play and you need systematic thinking for calculation and strategic planning. The most interesting battles often occur if an intuitive player is matched up with a "logician". Sometimes the intuitive player will be an attacking player and the logician will be the strategist (for example Tal-Botvinnik), sometimes it will be the other way round (Karpov-Kasparov). Two players of the same type are more likely to have a very lopsided score (Shirov-Kasparov comes to mind).

This also answers the question (finally…), no style has an advantage over the other. If you really want to dominate somebody, you best have the same style and do everything just a little bit better.

# Answer
> -5 votes
Positional chess DOES have an advantage over tactical chess in the sense that

Having a better position will bring about checkmate where the material advantage of tactical chess

May not necessarily bring about check mate

---
Tags: learning, tactics, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Which type of openings generally lead their users not to waste much time on the clock: sharp/aggressive/tactical or positional/solid/quiet openings?
I’m only asking this question out of curiosity. The answers I’ll get won’t make me change my opening repertoire.

OTB which type of openings generally lead their users not to waste too much time on the clock and not to get into time trouble often:

* sharp, aggressive and tactical openings: Sicilian, French, KID, Grünfeld, Semi-Slav, Benoni, Reversed Sicilian
* or positional, solid and quiet openings: Caro-Kann, Petrov, QGD, Catalan, Slav, Nimzo, QID, English Symmetrical

?

Of course you must also justify your answer.

Please only answer this question if you have played many many OTB games against many different opponents with different styles of play. If you have only played 30 OTB games you probably can’t answer this question.

# Answer
First I would like to preface that both the positional/solid/quiet openings and sharp/aggressive openings can be played quickly without using much clock time by simply being very knowledgeable about your opening.

Quiet openings, particularly systems, tend to require less time. This is because sharp openings are dynamic, that is to say that every move makes a big difference, something big is on the line. Take the kings gambit for example. The opening could quickly become complex white may have a strong attack; black would be advised to use his time because one misstep will cost the game. White also should take his time to make sure that he/she executes the attack effectively. Quiet openings, even when played incorrectly, will usually only result in a positional disadvantage, which of course is much less devastating than material advantage that often is in the air when we talk about sharp aggressive lines. In conclusion, sharp aggressive openings, by definitions, require precise calculation in a forest of complexity and tactics. Positional openings require analysis of positional motifs in the position; this usually requires less time than long strings of calculations that sharp positions such as the sicilian often get.
I draw attention to systems, which almost by definition are openings that the user is able to use in almost any situation. Take the london system, for example. This opening can be played practically against all black openings and quickly as well.
> 8 votes

# Answer
I have just upvoted the "postional openings take less time"-answer, so let me now argue the opposite:

I think generally people take more time in tactical positions, but there is a pretty common flip side to this. Players who regularly get into time trouble often have more trouble with quiet positions. For these people taking decisions is the problem and no amount of extra time is going to cure them. And taking decisions is actually easier if the differences between moves are big, like they usually are in very sharp positions. Also calculation is a pretty clear cut way to take a decision. If you have to assess minute positional differences in a quiet position, you can really take a lot of time without getting anywhere. This is a difference not really limited to the opening. In acute time trouble forcing lines are the easiest to find. If you really want to trip somebody up, change the character of the position, so he'll have to make positional assessments from scratch.
> 5 votes

# Answer
The previous answers are pretty complete. I was going to indicate much the same, particularly about system openings like the King's Indian Attack, where you're just aiming for a particular setup and the opponent's responses initially are almost irrelevant. Of course, you can't turn off your brain entirely in any position, but deep analysis shouldn't be required for quite a few opening moves. The Colle System and Stonewall System are some others that come to mind in this regard.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, strategy, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Is there an effective attack as white after Nf3 with e5 response in Atomic chess?
I'm a typical player who enjoys the `1. Nf3` opening as white in Atomic chess games. Today in an online Atomic chess tournament, I come across a player who played the `1... e5` response. As `1... f6` is the typical response here, and `1... e5` doesn't protect the `G5` square, `2. Ng5` could be played. But since `3. Ng7` allows the black queen to escape to `E7`, or even worse to `H4` and threaten an explosion at `F2` on `2... f5` `2. Ng5` doesn't seem to lead to anything effective. What should be played next?

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Attacker"]
[Black "Defender"]
[Variant "Atomic"]

1. Nf3 e5?!

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
There is a very interesting website with opening theory from the very first moves of atomic chess : https://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~chess/atomic/

To answer your question, after : 1.Nf3 e5 ? 2.Cg5 f5 ! ( Qxg5 lose the queen and ...f6 3.Nf7 Qe7 4.Nd6+) 3.h4! (cover h4 square from the black queen) and then 3...c6 4.Nxh7! or 3....Bc5 4.d4 Bb6 5.Nf7 Qe7 6.Nd6 Kf8 7.Nxb7 both leads to massive destruction of Black camp.

---
Tags: opening, atomic-chess
---


# Question
Title: Should I play the Cozio defense deferred?
The Cozio defense to the Ruy Lopez:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nge7
4. O-O

```

The Cozio defense deferred:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nge7

```

The deferred variation speaks more to me because I typically play a6. From the Opening Explorer, I think the best continuation for white is d4 followed by bringing the queen out to the center:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nge7
5. d4 exd4
6. Nxd4 Nxd4
7. Qxd4

```

I'd like to know more about these defenses. What types of games do they produce? Is anyone known for playing them? Are they prone to traps or other tactical considerations?

# Answer
> 7 votes
The Cozio defenses, both with 3....Nge7 (1) and 3....a6 4.Ba4 Nge7 (2), have been played by top grandmasters like Nakamura and Aronian. According to the Game Database of ChessTempo both variations are quite regularly played and equally popular: 1160 games for (1) and 703 games for (2).

Unsurprisingly, both variants are very similar. After (1) white usually plays 4.0-0 g6 5.c3 or 4.c3 immediately and after (2) white also often chooses the plan with c3: 5.c3 or 5.0-0 g6 6.c3. In this case, the variations of (1) and (2) usually transpose into each other.

However, it seems that there are some subtile differences between (1) and (2).

* After (1), white has an extra option that is regularly played: 4.Nc3 g6 5.d4 exd4 6.Nd5 Bg7 7.Bg5. After (2), this idea is less common, as black answers 5.Nc3 with 5....d6. Now 6.d4 does not really work: 6....b5 7.Bb3 Nxd4 8.Nxd4 exd4 9.Qxd4? c5! and black wins the bishop after 10....c4.
* In (2), white also has an extra option: after 3....a6 white can play 4.Bxc6.

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "5"]

      1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 (3...Nge7 4.Nc3 (4.O-O g6 5.c3) 4...g6 5.d4 exd4 6.Nd5 Bg7 7.Bg5) 4.Ba4 (4.Bxc6) Nge7  5.Nc3 (5.O-O g6 6.c3) d6 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 Nxd4 8.Nxd4 exd4 9.Qxd4 c5

```

---
Tags: opening, defense, ruy-lopez
---


title: "Breaking" crowded positions

text:
# Question
Title: "Breaking" crowded positions
White moves. Is there a systematic approach to tackling such crowded formations? I don't see an efficient way to progress, aside from charging to trade figures in order to thin the population.

```

[FEN "r1q2rk1/1p2pp2/2p2npb/p2pNb1p/Pn1P1P2/1PN1PBP1/2PB3P/2RQ1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
White is in a positional bind on the queenside. When cramped, a general strategy is to exchange pieces, but you must be careful not to allow all of your best pieces to be exchanged, e.g. if all the minor pieces in this position are traded off except for white's dark squared bishop, he will be in trouble.

Re1 with the idea of e4, to free white's position, is a standard idea that seems unstoppable in this position (black can try putting a piece on e4, but the exchanges that follow are favorable for white). An important point about closed positions is that you tend to be able to get away with slow maneuvers. So for this game, you could alternatively try Be1, Qe2, play Bxb4 if you can, and try to play e4 when the time is right. You may want to include Nd1-f2, and then c4 becomes an option.

# Answer
> 0 votes
This is a tricky case because White has allowed the horrific structural weakness on `e4` That backward e-pawn has to go. But Black has 3 defenders on `e4`.

I'd consider `1. Re1` preparing for `2. e4`. Another option is to play `1. Ne2` in preparation for `2. c4`.

In general, locked up pawns aren't bad as long as you don't give yourself weaknesses. Avoid the weaknesses if you can. If you can't, then find a way to break the position open.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Take the position step by step... Can you bring your pieces to good squares and/or force your opponent to move his pieces from strong outposts?

For example, could you (after lengthy preparation) somehow play c3 to force the Nb4 to retreat? White in in a bad position here because there is a risk that black will open up the game with b5 at some stage.

The way to deal with such situation is imagine where your pieces should go and then find a way to get them there. You have a weakness on c2, how about transferring the B to d1 to free the rook and then play c3? There is no magic bullet. It takes a lot of grinding.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You want to trade pieces after you've maximized the value of your own. (You have a space advantage, so Black's "maximum" is less than yours.)

Specifically, you want to concentrate your queen and rooks on the king side, and maybe redeploy some pieces. Once you've done that, you can use a king side pawn storm to open up lines for your pieces that Black can't counter with equal force.

---
Tags: learning, theory
---


# Question
Title: Is this endgame a draw? 2 Bishops + 4 Pawns vs Queen + 1 Pawn
I had this position playing as Black, with Black to move:

```
[FEN "8/5pk1/6p1/2pQ1b2/1p1b1P2/5K2/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

I had both bishops + 4 pawns = 6.5 points + 4 points = 10.5 points. The opponent has a queen + 1 pawn = 10 points.

I know how to challenge a queen with 2 rooks but not with 2 bishops supported with pawns. That's why I played to get the draw and I got it by claiming repetition.

**My Questions:**

* Do black or white have a way to force a win, or is it a draw?
* Does comparing with points matter here, with the “score” being 10.5 vs 10?

The whole game is here:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2015.07.06"]
[White "IRINA777"]
[Black "bigother"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "1396"]
[BlackElo "1427"]
[TimeControl "5|0"]
[Termination "Game drawn by repetition"]

1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.c3 Nf6 5.Bd3 O-O 6.O-O b6 7.Be3 Bb7 8.Qd2 Nbd7 9.Na3 c5 10.d5 Re8
 11.Nc4 Qc7 12.a4 e6 13.e5 dxe5 14.Ncxe5 Nxe5 15.Nxe5 Qxe5 16.dxe6 Qxe6 17.Rae1 Qc6 18.f3 Nd5 19.Bh6 Rxe1 20.Rxe1 Re8
 21.Bb5 Rxe1+ 22.Qxe1 Bxh6 23.Bxc6 Bxc6 24.c4 Be3+ 25.Kh1 Bd4 26.cxd5 Bxd5 27.a5 Bxb2 28.axb6 axb6 29.Qd2 Bd4 30.Qd3 Bc6
 31.h4 b5 32.h5 b4 33.hxg6 hxg6 34.f4 Bd7 35.Kh2 Bf5 36.Qc4 Kg7 37.g3 Kg8 38.Kg2 Kg7 39.Kf3 Kg8 40.g4 Be6
 41.Qa6 Kg7 42.Ke4 Bxg4 43.Qb7 Bh3 44.Qb5 Bf5+ 45.Kf3 Kg8 46.Qe8+ Kg7 47.Qb8 Kh7 48.Qb7 Kg7 49.Qb5 Kg8 50.Qc4 Kg7
 51.Qb3 Kg8 52.Qc4 Kg7 53.Qd5 Kg8 54.Qd8+ Kg7 55.Qd5 Kg8 56.Qa8+ Kg7 57.Qd5 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
Black is winning handily from the diagram position, and has a fairly straightforward strategy going forward: force the b-pawn's advance to b2 with the support of the bishops (starting with `1...Be6` to gain control of the b3 square), and then slowly push for a new queen, making use of the facts that (1) White must always keep guard over b1, and (2) Black has plenty of material to shield from a potential perpetual.

The following is lightly annotated over the first few moves, and from move 5 on is just one line illustrating how Black can make steady progress with nothing to fear from the White queen.

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "8/5pk1/6p1/2pQ1b2/1p1b1P2/5K2/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...Be6
    {Taking control of the b3 square with tempo, preparing to advance the
    b-pawn.}
2.Qb7 b3 3.f5
    {White needs to try this, as otherwise Black can simply follow with
    ...b2, ...Bf5 and queening. Playing this immediately forces Black to
    occupy f5 with the pawn, since ...Bxf5 drops the b3 pawn.}
    ( 3.Ke2 $2 b2 4.Kd2 Bf5 )
3...gxf5
    {Still, Black will be able to get in ...b2 from here, which will tie
    White to guarding against promotion on b1. The only hope for White
    would be a perpetual, but Black has plenty of material with which to
    shelter the king.}
4.Kf4 b2
    {What follows is just one illustrative line showing how Black can keep
    the king safe while pushing toward a new queen.}
5.Qg2+ Kf8 6.Qa8+ Ke7 7.Qb8 c4 8.Qc7+ Bd7 9.Qb7 f6 10.Qb4+ Ke8 11.Qb8+ Kf7
12.Qb7 Be5+ 13.Ke3 f4+ 14.Kd2 Kg6 15.Qg2+ Kh5 16.Qh1+ Kg5 17.Qg2+ Bg4 18.
Qb7 c3+ 19.Ke1 f3 20.Qg7+ Kf4 21.Qh6+ Kg3 22.Qg6 f2+ 23.Kf1 b1=Q+ 24.Qxb1
Bh3+ 25.Ke2 f1=Q+ 26.Qxf1 Bxf1+ 27.Kxf1 c2 *

```
> 20 votes

# Answer
Actually, looks to me like black is winning. For example:

```
8/5pk1/6p1/2pQ1b2/1p1b1P2/5K2/8/8 b - - 0 1

1... Be6 2. Qb7 b3 3. f5 {only move - opening black's position up} gxf5 (3... Bxf5?!) Kf4 b2 {now black has to escape queen's checks...}

```

From here, white can go on with some checking sequence, but it looks to me that black will be able to escape a draw by perpetual check eventually and promote.

The piece point scoring systems are subjective by default and also often heavily dependent on the position and number of pieces left. I do not think exact point comparison is useful in this particular case, however. The position is roughly equal, yes - black just happens to have his king safeguarded from checks and two well supported, passed pawns and thereby excellent winning chances. Suppose though, that both black and white f-pawns were gone. Point-difference-wise nothing has changed - 9.5 to 9 now, but it would be much more difficult, if not impossible, for black to force a win, since his king is now much more exposed to checks. What I mean, is that with this same material imbalance (Q+P vs B+B+4P), one could easily set up positions with any possible end result as an outcome - all depending on how the pieces are positioned and coordinated.

There are also many fortress scenarios in queen vs rook/minor piece(s) endings, where the point system can be misleading. Suppose, for example, the c and b pawns were to be removed - now, in theory, white is ahead - 10 to 8.5 points. I haven't checked, but black should be able to set up a fortress and hold a draw despite the material disadvantage.
> 15 votes

---
Tags: endgame, draw, bishop-pair, queen-and-bishop-endgame
---


title: Wording of Troitsky line rule

text:
# Question
Title: Wording of Troitsky line rule
The current Wikipedia article on the two knights endgame states:

> For the position with White to move, Troitsky established that if a black pawn is securely blockaded (by one of the white knights) on a square no further forward than the line a4–b6–c5–d4–e4–f5–g6–h4, then White can win the resulting endgame (and similarly in reverse for Black), no matter where the other pieces are placed.

I think the wording needs to be changed because various positions seem to me to be exceptions to the rule as stated. I'm having difficulty persuading the author of this, so perhaps it's me misunderstanding it.

I thought, out of interest, that I might take a straw poll of how many people think that the draws below are adequately covered by the wording as it is and how many people think they area valid exceptions.

Please leave a comment saying "covered" or "exception" if you read this. (If you think "covered" it would be helpful to me if you could say why, but you don't need to add any explanation if you don't want to.)

I should mention here that, since this is a poll and I'm hoping for as many responses as possible, I won't actually accept any answers even if they are perfect.

(I removed my first diagram because it was "cooked" as pointed out by GloriaVictis. The diagram was as shown in his answer.)

2.

```
[fen "N6k/2p5/2N2K2/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[White "Either"]
[Black "to Move"]

```

3.

```
[fen "2N5/4p3/4N3/1k2K3/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
[White "Black"]
[Black "to Move"]

```

4.

```
[fen "7N/2p5/2N5/3K2k1/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
[White "Black"]
[Black "to Move"]

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
**The key word in the rule is "securely".**

Meaning, that there is nothing the opponent can do to lift the blockade.

In the posted position, white has to play 1. Ng6 - otherwise black will play 1. .. g5 and be beyond the Troitzky line - achieving draw immediately.

Subsequently, the black king will march toward the pawn, starting with 1. .. Kc5 and force the g6 knight away, as white is not in time to defend it, neither with the king nor the other knight. Then, g5 will and draw will follow.

Thus, the position appears to be covered by the rule in its current wording, as the pawn is **not securely blockaded**.

**EDIT - answering to the comment.**

```
4N3/6p1/8/8/1k5N/8/8/7K w - - 0 1

1. Ng6 Kc5 2. Kg2 (2. Nc7 Kd6 3. Nb5+ (3. Ne8+ {pointless}) Ke6 {white is one move short of getting the other knight to e5} 4. Nd4+ Kf6 {white must move the knight away and g5 follows}) Kd5 Kg3 Ke6 4. Kg4 (4. Nf4+ Ke7 {white has to move the knight away and g5 follows}) (4. Nc7+ Kf7 {white is not in time to defend the knight, g5 will inevitably follow after a couple checks}) Kf7 {white cannot defend both knights}

```

**EDIT 2**

As for the later added positions, I believe they are all covered by ETD's answer.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I believe that GloriaVictis' answer addresses your first position very well, in that the pawn is not actually *securely* blockaded in that case; Black can force the further advance of the pawn.

Your other positions are also susceptible to an insecure blockade, or are special in that, say, one of the knights is doomed to be lost, or else cannot participate in the play without capturing the pawn, yielding a draw in either case. For instance, position (4):

```
[fen "7N/2p5/2N5/3K2k1/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...Kf6 {The knight cannot be saved except by allowing the pawn to advance.} 2.Ne5 (2.Ke4 Kg7) c5 3.Nhf7

```

So, one could insist that the wording cited in your question be strengthened to say something like, "the pawn is securely blockaded *and neither of the knights faces imminent capture, or is forced to capture the pawn in order to participate, etc.*." Ultimately, that is perhaps a matter of taste; I think most would instead say that these are clearly recognizable as special cases which the wording you cite need not attempt to address.

# Answer
> 0 votes
For information I think the correct rule should be

> If a black pawn is blockaded (by one of the white knights) on a square no further forward than the line a4–b6–c5–d4–e4–f5–g6–h4 and the blockading knight is protected by the other knight, then White can win the resulting endgame (and similarly in reverse for Black), no matter where the other pieces are placed.

Müller and Lamprecht imply this version in Fundamental Chess Endings but unfortunately don't make it explicit, which means that if the rules governing Wikipedia content are strictly adhered to, this also can't be made explicit on the Wikipedia page (failing an alternative source).

---
Tags: endgame, knights
---


# Question
Title: Why is 2...e6 the most common move after 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4, but not after 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3?
This is the case on the Chesstempo database, and the Chessbase database.

I don't understand why. Wouldn't people who favour Nimzo-type setups play 2...e6 against both moves, and people who favour King's Indian setups play 2...g6 against both? If so, why is 2...g6 more popular than 2...e6 in the position 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3?

# Answer
I believe the reason is that from a theoretical point of view it makes a lot of sense to go for the Queen's Gambit declined, only after white has played Nf3. The most aggressive tries for white in the QGD involve Nge2 and f3, aiming for e4, a plan that was introduced by Botvinnik and is still very dangerous. Obviously this isn't possible if white has already played Nf3.

Also if white goes for d4/c4/Nc3 it makes sense to go for the Nimzo-Indian because the Nimzo is theoretically in excellent shape. Whereas the Queen's Indian at least right now is apparently under some pressure.

I would further argue that the Queen's Indian or the Bogo-Indian aren't closer in terms of "set up" to the Nimzo then the QGD. There is actually a very trendy line right now, that can be reached from both the Nimzo and the QGD: The Ragozin variation.

So this isn't a case of Nimzo-setup against King's Indian-setup, it is just the case that the theoretically soundest repertoire for black against d4 is a combination of Nimzo and QGD. With that in mind the statistics make sense: Basically you go for the QGD whenever Nf3 happens, otherwise you keep the Nimzo option open.
> 3 votes

# Answer
According to the Game Database of ChessTempo, after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3, the statistics are:

* 2....d5: 33177 games
* 2....g6: 33147 games
* 2....e6: 30533 games

While, after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4, the Nimzo-style setup is more popular than the Kings-Indian setup:

* 2....e6: 121346 games
* 2....g6: 86232 games

This indeed seems not very logical at first sight. However, after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3, the most popular moves are:

* 3....d5: 39228 games
* 3....b6: 31877 games

So, when having a repertoire based on 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5, it makes sense to play 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5. Similarly, when having a repertoire based on 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6, one can answer 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 with 2....e6 (or 2....b6).
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, 1.d4, kings-indian, nimzo-indian
---