# Question
Title: Game analysis: What would motivate a human player to sacrifice White Knight at move 10 in this game?
I am a beginner player (rating on Lichess.org around 1550). While analyzing one of my own games (pasted below), Stockfish calculated that a Knight sacrifice at 10th move is a good idea. I tried playing through the position after the Knight sacrifice, and white is able to regain a minor piece after ~10 moves, and it possibly worsens Black's position after ~10 more moves (but I'm not so sure about that).

But, my question is: is it possible for a human player to recognize that a Knight sacrifice at move 10 in this game is going to benefit White? Is there a simple heuristic thought process that can help a player recognize that the position after 10. Nxe5 is beneficial for White?

(My chess knowledge level: trying to play without hanging pieces. No knowledge of openings or positional games or any formal theory)

The game is as follows:

```
[fen ""]
[White "White"]
[WhiteElo "1585"]
[Black "Black"]
[BlackElo "1354"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qf6 { C40 King's Pawn Game: McConnell Defense } 3. Nc3 c6 4. Bc4 h6 5. O-O Be7 6. d4 d6 7. d5 c5 8. Nb5 Na6 9. c3 Qg6 { I am surprised that Stockfish thinks a Knight sacrifice Nxe5 is better here. Let me see how that line goes.... } 10. Re1 (10. Nxe5 dxe5 11. d6 Bh3 (11... Bd8 12. d7+ Bxd7 13. Nd6+ Kf8 14. Nxf7 Bc6 15. Nxd8 Qxe4 16. Nxc6 Qxc6 17. Qh5 Qc7 18. f4 e4 19. f5 Nf6 20. Qg6 b5 21. Bf4 Qd7 22. Bd6+ Qxd6 23. Qf7#) 12. Qf3 Be6 13. Bxe6 Qxe6 14. dxe7 Nxe7 15. Rd1 O-O 16. Rd6 Qc4 17. Na3 Qa4 18. b3 Qe8 19. Nc4 Ng6 20. Be3 Rd8) 10... Bh3 11. Bf1 Bf6 12. Qa4 Bd7 13. b4 c4 14. Bxc4 Ne7 15. Nxd6+ Kd8 16. Nxb7+ Kc8 17. Qxa6 Bg5 18. Nd6+ Kd8 { Here White missed a mate in 1 with Qa5 } 19. Nxe5 Qf6 20. Qb7 Qxd6 21. Nxf7+ Ke8 22. Nxd6+ { Black resigns. } 1-0

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
I am quite certain that it is possible to find this move for a higher level chess player.

This has little to do with calculation depth actually. Yes, the engine is able to look 10 moves ahead and conclude that White is going to win his piece back in most or all positions resulting from the sacrifice. But for a human player, all that matters is if he can "see" (recognize) the right pattern. Concrete calculation only follows to make sure that this pattern is actually winning (and most of the work is done in the first 3 moves, instead of 10). Unfortunately, there is no easy heuristic blueprint (else we would all be GMs), most of this ability to "see" comes from experience. However, there are a few hints:

* First of all, White has the more active position (he has castled already, his pieces are much better developed (to active squares), and he has some space advantage), so he should generally put himself in the mindset of the attacker, not the defender.
* Looking at the developed pieces in particular, the knight on b5 is very strong and puts pressure on c7 and d6 - and from the latter could attack f7 as well - which also happens to be in the scope of his bishop on c4.
* His queen and other bishop are ready to attack as well, but for now, there are pawns in the way. A friendly one blocks the file for the queen, and a hostile one defends f4 from the bishop. Nxe5 will help in both cases, but that alone does of course not justify a sacrifice.
* Now the crucial part is to switch focus from *attacking* d6 to *occupying* d6. Important features that make this pawn advance really strong all by themselves (aside from the fact that passed pawns on the 6th rank are rarely a bad idea): Black's bishop on e7 will be attacked immediately, and Black has not castled yet, so d7+ is a very serious threat.
* Additionally, all of White's pieces gain activity: The bishop on c4 gets freed, the queen gets additional scope along the d-file, the knight on b5 gets additional safety on c7 and without a black pawn on d6, the ones on c5 and e5 become very vulnerable to the other knight and bishop.

So, White's position would be overwhelmingly strong - if only the black pawn on d6 did not exist. A GM will probably see this immediately. For us normal folks, maybe that is the mental exercise you are looking for: **If you "sense" that you have an advantageous position that possibly allows some tactics, check the *important* pieces and pawns** (not the one on a6 obviously) **of your opponent and judge the position with them missing. Once you have found a keystone, the actual calculation often is not that difficult. You just have to find a way to deflect the pawn/piece you identified as holding your opponent's position together, leading you to look out for moves like Nxe5**.

Now in this case, the real calculation would merely amount to:

1. Bh3 counter attack - easily defended by Qf3, even adding pressure on f7 at the same time
2. Bxd6 - you can simply retake, regaining your piece while maintaining a good attack
3. Black retreats his bishop (e.g Bd8) - you can continue with d7+, and after Bxd7, d6 is open for the knight. At this point, you may have to calculate 2-3 additional moves, but really, if you have arrived here, you have done most of the work already.
4. Additionally, Tony Ennis' idea around f4 is worth having a look at, too.
5. Last but not least, you always have to consider that Black can refuse the sacrifice. Well, then Nxe5 either just won a pawn (probably the safer choice by Black) or has opened another attack angle after ...Qxe4 - you can now play Re1 with pressure along the opened e-file on an uncastled king.

As a contrast, list of reasons why people tend to overlook opportunities like this:

* They are too occupied with the last move of Black (Qg6) that threatens Qxe4 and focus solely on the defense of that threat. End of list.

In all honesty, I still belong to that group too. Hindsight is 20/20.

# Answer
> 3 votes
As an FM Nxe5 is something that I would have considered in a tournament game, but would have missed in a blitz game. Many GMs would see this in a blitz game.

Black is behind in development with a king in center in a closed position. This is such a fleeting advantage for white that drastic measures must be considered.

The hard part is seeing Nd6-f7 after d7 clearance.

Second hard part is that a human player might play 11. ... Bf8?! after d6. White is down a piece for a single pawn with no immediate mate visible, but black king is in center and black is ridiculously undeveloped.

So white should be winning.

Now you have to see that after tempting 12. f4 black looks completely busted 12. ... Qxe4 and now you have to see that 13. Bd5 is winning

But again, black might play 12. ... Bd7 13. fxe5 0-0-0 this should be easily winning for white but they are still down a piece!

So calculating this position in my head at move 9. I would not be sure whether to play 14. Nxa7+ or 14. Rxf7 or 14. Bxf7 or maybe something else. However, I would have to trust my instincts and prune this whole line as bad for black.

With practice and study you develop a sort of spidery sense on what moves to consider.

The concerns that Annatar listed should happen near instantly at 2000+ level.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I'm a lofty USCF "B" player. So take my words with a pound of salt.

I would never think to play that move. But what does it allow? The f-pawn is unblocked. After 1. f4 exf4 2. Bxf4, White has developed another piece and the Rook on f1 is looking at f7. Now White can think about d6, which doubles up on f7. Black has a threat of Bh3 and Qxg2#, but that won't happen.

My Stockfish also chose that move. That does not mean a beginner should have found it. Moves like that require a degree of technical vision that would be uncommon in a person who isn't a master.

```
[FEN "r1b1k1nr/pp2bpp1/n2p2qp/1NpPp3/2B1P3/2P2N2/PP3PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 1 10"]

1.Nxe5 dxe5 2.f4 Bg4 3.Qe1 O-O-O {If he takes the pawn, he won't be able to castle after the Bishop recaps} (3...exf4 4.Bxf4 O-O-O 5.Nxa7+ Kd7 6.Bb5) 4.fxe5 Kb8 5.Bf4 {Note the potential discovered check, and how this affects the f7 square. White's position is full of goodness} Ka8 {Run away! Run away!} 6.d6 {This pawn is a monster. Imagine when White supports it with a Rook...} Be6 {The d-pawn must be destroyed. Black is willing to pay the piper.} (6... Bg5 7.Bxf7 Qxf7 8. Bxg5 {discovering the Queen}) (6... Bf8 7. Qg3 Bh5 8. Rae1 {and here Black is so knotted up he wants to sacrifice the g-Knight on e7 but I would play Qxg3 though Stockfish says it is far worse}) 7.dxe7 Nxe7 8.Qe2 Bxc4 9.Qxc4 Qe6 {White has regained the sacrificed material and is having a splendid game.}

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
If human player can't calculate 10 moves ahead, the player might use his/her feeling based on the experience he got.

Sacrifice like `10. Nxe5`, get the initiative, open the game, and allow the d-pawn to start attacking.

The answer for the question is the sacrifice justified?

* Might be objective (what a great computer chess engine will analysis)
* Subjective - how will you use it against your current opponent

It is interesting that several chess engine gave different result for the move `10. Nxe5`

Note: Unfortunately I don't have access to any *professional* chess engine right now.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It was a temporary sacrifice. It enabled the knight on b5 to run amok through Black territory, and get both bishops for the two knights. Black ended up with an isolated e pawn, and vastly inferior mobility in the variation.

White in this game played "better" than a beginner. Maybe it was his "best" game, but if he keeps it up, he'll be an intermediate at least.

Capablanca (a world champion) did a similar thing in one game, and won.

---
Tags: learning, sacrifice
---


title: What does checkmate actually mean?

text:
# Question
Title: What does checkmate actually mean?
Checkmate means king is in trap and there is no way out.

If it is my turn and opponent's king has a way out from trap, am I said to win the game?

EDIT: Suppose my rook is in the adjacent column w.r.t opponent's king and I move my rook so that it is in the same column with free space by the position of King. Opponent somehow doesn't observe the check and make a move that can't break my check. Now, it's my turn and Let king has all 6 ways out from the check. But after alll it's my turn so is King checkmated or not?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Checkmate means *shāh māt* in Persian, i.e. *the King is helpless*.

This means 2 conditions must be met:

* The enemy king is in check
* There are no legal moves to get the king out of check, e.g. there are no moves to capture the checking piece(s), or to move the king away or to block the check

N.B. When considering whether the king can get out of check, note that castling is not a legal move, as a king cannot castle into, out of, or through check.

The situation you describe seems to have been a mistake, made through a combination of illegal moves. In this case, there are 2 options:

* Restore the last legal position, which is what I would recommend for friendly games
* In a tournament setting, illegal moves may result in a loss for the player making the illegal moves. Check with the arbiter in this case

# Answer
> 0 votes
A checkmate is when one player gets the other player into a check that the opposing player is not able to legally get out of.

---
Tags: checkmate, kings
---


# Question
Title: Can a game be conducted with 30 second per move. And if the player finishes 30 seconds the move goes to the other player
I am currently participating in a chess competition and they have kept the timer as 30 seconds per move. If you cannot move within 30 seconds, the move gets passed on to the other player. Is this possible?

# Answer
No. Then there would be no Zugzwang. Zugzwang would mean draw. This type of time control removes a very important concept in chess and thus reduces the depth and beauty of the game.
> 3 votes

# Answer
It is possible because with the move being given to the opposing player, they could take that move to their advantage and get you into a checkmate. I believe that this type of variation is interesting and very possible.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Sounds like an interesting variation and possible. 3 fold repetition would make a null move after 30 seconds followed by other null moves end in tie.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: online-chess
---


# Question
Title: What's a good explanation for stalemate being a draw for a beginning chess player?
I've started playing chess a little more using an app on my phone, and frequently run into the situation where I'm dominating the computer opponent (on an easy difficulty level) to the point where he can't make a legal move (e.g. I've got 5 queens or something like that). Of course, this is a stalemate and it's a draw.

From Googling around, it seems like it's common for most beginners to feel like they're being "cheated" in this situation (as I do), while most experienced players "agree" with the rule.

I've yet to see an explanation that makes me feel like I'm not being cheated. The explanations all seem to say "it's a draw because the rule say it's a draw", or only slightly better, "the rules say that to win, you must put your opponent into check (such that he can't get out), and since you didn't do this, you didn't win, so it's a draw." I don't mean any offense, but this just seems like circular reasoning to me.

Draws make intuitive sense to me when there are few pieces left and neither player has enough of an advantage to checkmate the other (a simple example would be when there are just 2 kings left), but I'm having a hard time seeing how "anywhere I move would put me in check" and "I'm in check and anywhere I move would leave me still in check" aren't really equivalent concepts.

Take the theoretical case above (say black has 5 queens and a king, and white just has a king, and they're positioned in such a way that white can't move without putting himself in check). How can a beginner be convinced that black hasn't dominated so thoroughly that he should win?

# Answer
If you were dominating so much, you should have checkmated him. It's not the fault of the game that your mistakes may mean you don't win.

The appeal of chess comes partly from the fact that it is *hard*. One of the reasons for that is that there is quite a large drawing margin -- you may have a great position at some point, but there may still be many ways to defend tenaciously in endgames, and a good opponent can make it very hard for you to win even if he does make a big mistake early on.

Those ways include eternal check, the fact that you can't checkmate with a single bishop or knight against a lone king, fortresses, and also many ways to defend based on stalemate.

For instance, king + pawn vs king (where the pawn isn't immediately lost) would be a trivial win for the pawn without stalemate, but with stalemate it's sometimes a forced win and sometimes it's possible to hold a draw. Because you need to see which it is before you trade down to that endgame, that makes the game deeper and harder.

I don't think chess would have become as popular as it is without rules like stalemate. It would be a shallower game.

You just didn't play well enough.
> 8 votes

# Answer
If a stalemate would count as mate, it would make winning much easier for the stronger side. As it is now, stalemate can be used as a defensive resource for the weaker side, which keeps endgames suspenseful, and requires deeper knowledge and calculation from both sides.

> Take the theoretical case above (say black has 5 queens and a king, and white just has a king, and they're positioned in such a way that white can't move without putting himself in check). How can a beginner be convinced that black hasn't dominated so thoroughly that he should win?

There are a lot of positions where the side with less material wins. It is the very nature of chess that material isn't everything, but only one factor of many. Imagine a chess-like game where everything is over just because you lost a pawn (as the material imbalance would inevitably lead to a loss). Would you like to play such a game?

Stalemate and other kinds of draws make it harder for stronger side and keep the game interesting. And of course, don't forget that you can use these rules to your own advantage if you're about to lose.
> 7 votes

# Answer
**Weird Chess Rule Number 1 - you *HAVE* to make a move**

This is a fundamental rule of chess and in quite contrast to real war/battle like situations. In a real battle, you may not want to make a move if you're sure that the move will cause you harm. You may choose to keep your soldiers in the exact same position and wait for the enemy to move and then react accordingly. Unfortunately, in chess, you cannot do that. You cannot say "pass" and give up your turn.

Consider this position -

```
     [FEN "8/8/8/8/8/K7/B7/k7 b - - 0 1"]
     [Event "Black to move cannot avoid putting the king in check"]

```

Here, it is Black to move. The Black king can technically go to **g8**, **g7**, or **h7**. But if it moves to either of these squares, it will walk into a check and thus be threatened with capture. **So what should the outcome of this game be?** We aren't allowing Black the option of not making a move and at the same time forcing Black to make a move that would move the king into check, when in fact the king is quite safe in the corner and White has no way of winning.

Thus, to be ***fair*** to Black, this position has to be declared a draw.

Unfortunately, this is not true for every position where Black (or White for that matter) has no moves that do not lead to putting the king in check.

So, in this position -

```
    [FEN "8/8/8/8/8/K7/2Q5/k7 b - - 0 1"]
    [Event "Black to move cannot avoid putting the king in check"]

```

Black has no moves, but that doesn't mean the fair thing to do is declare this position a draw. However, that's unfortunately the current rule in chess. It's no wonder that the stalemate rule has varied greatly throughout history. At the most, one could argue that **it's not fair to ask Black to move the king into a position where it could be attacked**, but since we insist on *weird chess rule number 1*, then the fair thing to do is to declare this position a draw.

There are also stalemates that can occur because the side is forced to capture its own pieces in order to make a move.

**Changing the Stalemate Rules will Greatly Change Chess Endgame Theory**

This is another reason why the flawed stalemate rule is allowed to exist. We have studied chess endgames with this rule in much detail. Changing the stalemate rule will significantly alter how we understand the game of chess and much of our acquired knowledge of chess will be useless and even misleading. For example, consider the simple case of king and pawn endgames. If stalemate is not a draw, endgames like these will have to be declared to be winning for the side with the extra pawn.

```
     [FEN "7k/8/8/8/8/8/6KP/8 w - - 0 1"]
     [Event "White wins if stalemate is not a draw"]

     1. h4 Kh7 2. Kg3 Kh6 3. Kg4 Kh7 4. h5 Kh6 5. Kh4 Kh7 6. Kg5 Kg7 7. h6+ Kh7 8.
     Kh5 Kh8 9. Kg6 Kg8 10. h7+ Kh8 11. Kh6

```

***Fundamental*** endgame positions like these will have to be re-evaluated and in turn ***those endgame studies which rely on these fundamental positions will have to be re-evaluated***. In turn, our understanding of the middlegame will also have to be altered to fit this new endgame knowledge. Thus, it's very impractical at this point in history to change the stalemate rule.

**Conclusion**

We have decided not to change *weird chess rule number 1*. Stalemate is a by-product of that rule. It's not fair to force a side to move its king into check, thus, in this context, it makes sense to declare stalemate to be a draw.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Here's how I would motivate the beautiful stalemate rule to a beginner:

"Suppose that you lose a rook, and a lot of pieces are traded off. Time to give up, right? No, you've still got a cunning resource which makes the game very exciting. Basically, you have to make a move every time it's you turn. If none of your pieces can move, then you haven't lost: instead it's a draw! You've saved the game from apparent defeat! How cool is that? Imagine your opponent's face!

"Let's look at a few typical positions... etc."
> 4 votes

# Answer
Chess is a game of "war between two kingdoms". One potential war action is a siege. Sieges have a couple general outcomes -- either the kingdom under siege collapses and the kingdom is lost or it withstands the siege until the attacking army is forced to withdraw.

If the siege can be withstood, if there are sufficient resources to outwait the enemy, the result is a 'stalemate'.

That's essentially the underlying basis. It's not possible for the attackers to breach the defenses, and the defenders cannot escape but rather must stay within the defensive position.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The other answers imply that there is an *external reason* for the rule to be what it is. No! The rules are artificial, so we can choose whatever rule we want (as long as we stick to them). Why does the knight *have* to move in a 1,2 L-shape? No external answer either...

Here is an *internal reason*: a) The game is won when **checkmate** is given. b) To continue the game in his turn, a player **must** make a move. c) In a stalemate position, a player **cannot** move.

It follows that in a stalemate, the game cannot proceed, so it ends; however, no mate was given, so nobody wins; i.e., it has to be a **draw.**
> 2 votes

# Answer
Taking into account the **fact** that stronger side **always** chooses if the game ends in a stalemate or not, and that the stalemate is the result of **recklessness**, it is fair to declare the game drawn.

You are not cheated, because to win you must put opposing king into checkmate ( which you did not do -\> checkmate is **indefensible check** ), you are just **punished** for being **reckless.** To me that is fair result since you were the only one who had control, not the opponent, and you blew it. Pay more attention next time.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: draw, stalemate
---


# Question
Title: How fast can checkmate occur by just moving the king?
How short can a game be in which (after the first move) one player moves only their king, and yet checkmates their opponent?

This is assuming that the players cooperate, i.e. this is a kind of "helpmate." This generalizes a problem by Stanley Rabinowitz, 1596 Journal of Recreational Mathematics 1987. No peeking at his solution, please! :D

# Answer
Here is a starter solution in 7 moves.

Can we do better?

```
[FEN ""]

1.g3 e5 2.Bh3 Ke7 3.Bxd7 Kxd7 4.Kf1 Ke7 5. Kg2 Ke6 6.Kh3 Kf6+ 7.Kh4 Kg6#

```

If this is best, interestingly, the play is almost forced. The only variations are 4... Kd6 or 4... Ke7 in the line above. There is also 4... Ke6 and 5... Kf5, or 3. Kf1 Kd6/Ke8 4. Bxd7 Kxd7 5.Kg2 Ke6, etc. Only five possible move orders with such a minimal stipulation would be quite nice.
> 54 votes

# Answer
> It's impossible to checkmate faster than 7 turns (handicap on black) or 8 turns (handicap on white).

# Proof by elimination

> I'm going to argue from the perspective that white is helping and black is handicapped, since otherwise it would take 1 more move.

Only Queen, Bishops and Rooks can be used by the black player to threaten the white king, as only they allow for discovered checks. Also, black can only move one of the pawns on d7, e7 or f7, as any other pawn means there are no moves available for the black King on turn 2.

# Using 1 threat

### Black Bishop on c8

* Can corner on h3, requiring a Bishop to obstruct g3 (or a Bishop or a pawn to obstruct h4, though in that case g2 needs to be dealt with), since other figures can just move to block the check.
> The fastest way requires at least 7 moves by white \[2 moves for pawns, 3 moves for King, 2 moves for Bishop\]
* Can corner on g4. This requires 5 obstructions on h4, h5, g3, f3 and either g5 or f4 (none of which are bale to move to block the check)
> This requires at least 8 moves by white (likely more) \[3 moves for King to reach g4, at least 5 moves to setup obstacles, can't use a black pawn as obstacle\]
* Can corner on f5. This requires 2 non-Knight obstacles on f4 and g5.
> This requires at least 7 moves by white \[3 moves for obstacles (no figure can move to g5 in one move), 4 moves to get King on f5\]

### Black Bishop on f8

* Can corner on a3. Similar to other Bishop on h3 (see above).
> Requires 1 more move by the King though, so at least 8 moves for white.
* Can corner on b4. Similar to other Bishop on g4 (see above).
> Requires at least 1 more move (King detour or additional pawn move), so at least 9 moves.
* Can corner on c5. Similar to other Bishop on f5 (see above).
> Requires 1 more move (extra pawn move), so at least 8 moves for white.

### Black Queen

* Can corner on a5. This requires obstructions on a4 and b4, and white needs to capture c7.
> Requires at least 9 moves \[2 moves to setup obstacles, 2 moves to capture c7, 4 moves for the King, and 1 more move to get a pawn out of the way\].
* Can corner on h4. This requires obstructions on h3, g3 and either h5 or g4 (none of which are able to move to block the check).
> Requires at least 8 moves \[3 moves for the King, at least 4 moves to setup obstacles and 1 more move (King detour or extra pawn move)\].
* Can corner on g5. Similar to Bc8 cornering on f5 (see above).
> Requires at least 1 more move, so at least 8 moves total \[+1 move King detour or extra pawn move\].
* Can corner on d1. Requires that the white Rooks are positioned on c1 and e1, that c2 and e2 not be moved (basically requireing at least 1 move for the whole white back line), removing d2 from that file and capturing d7.
> Requires at least 11 moves \[1 for each figure on the white back line, at least 2 for the pawn on d2 (e.g. capturing e5), and at least 1 more pawn move (so Bf1 can move)\].

### Black Rook on h8

* Can corner on h3. This requires at least obstructions on g2 and g3 (which are unable th block the check), since the black King can threaten g4.
> Requires at least 9 moves \[3 moves King + 1 move pawn to get King on h3, 1 move pawn + 1 move Bishop to obstruct g2 and g3, 3 moves to capture h7 with Knight or Queen\].
* Can corner on h4. This requires an obstruction on g3 (by a non-Knight), capturing h7 and either another obstruction on g4 or a black pawn on f5.
> Requires at least 8 moves \[3 moves King + 1 move pawn, 1 move pawn to obstruct g3, 3 moves Knight to capture h7\].
* **Cannot corner on h5**. This would requires capturing h7 and either g7 or g8 and obstacles on g4 and g5 (g5 would need to be a pawn, anything else would be able to block the check from the the black Rook or treaten the target of the last move of the black King. However, since it isn't possible for black to stay on h7 for 2 consecutive turns, it is impossible to move the white King and/or the white obstruction for g4 into place (assuming g5 is in position, Kh7 cannot move to h6 to continue blocking the threat from the Rook).

### Black Rook on a8

* Can corner on a3. Similar to Rh8 cornering h3 (see above), gains a move (moving d2 allows both King and Bishop to move directly) and loses one (+1 distance for the King).
> Requires at least 9 moves total.
* Can corner on a4. Requires obstacles on b3 and b4 (cannot use black pawn to threaten b4) and capturing h7.
> Requires at least 10 moves \[1 move pawn, 4 moves King, at least 2 moves to capture h7, at least 3 moves to setup obstacles\].
* **Cannot corner on a5** (see Rh8 cornering h5 above).

# Using 2 threats

### Queen and Bc8

Requires capturing d7 or e7 (= at least 2 extra moves + possibly a pawn move).

* Can corner on h3 (similar to Bc8). Requires either an obstacle on g3 (Bishop) or an obstacle on g2 (Bishop or Rook) and moving g2 at least to g6.

> Requires at least 10 moves.
>
> \[Variant A: 3 moves King, 3 moves pawns or detour King, 2 moves for Bg3, at least 2 moves to capture d7 or e7\].
>
> \[Variant B: 3 moves King, 3 moves pawn (g2 to g6), 1 move Bg2, at least 3 moves to account for capturing d7 or e7, 1 move King detour or extra pawn\].
* Can corner on h4 (see @Evargalo's answer).
> Requires at least 7 moves.
* Can corner on g4 (similar to Bc8). Requires obstacles on h5, f3 and g3 (black pawn can threaten f4).
> Requires at least 8 moves \[3 moves King, at least 2 moves capturing d7 or e7, 2 moves pawns (g3 and f3), +1 move King detour or extra pawn\].
* Can corner on g5. This requires an obstacle on h5, either an obstacle on f4 or a black pawn on e5, and capturing ant least one of d7 or e7.
> Requires at least 9 moves \[2 moves to obstruct h5, 4 moves King, 1 move pawn, at least 2 moves to capture d7 or e7)\].
* Can corner on f5. Requires a obstacle on e4.
> Requires at least 7 moves \[4 moves King, 1 move pawn, at least 2 moves to capture d7 or e7\].

### Queen and Rh8

* Can corner on h5. Requires capturing g7 and h7 and either capturing d7 (using black pawn on e5) or an obstacle on g4.
> At least 9 moves \[1 move pawn, 3 moves Queen to capture g7 and h7, 4 moves King, 1 move pawn g4\].
* Can corner h3, h4 or g4 as if single threat by either of those figures (potentially requiring additional obstacles as the black King cannot cover both Queen and Rook), costing some moves to unlock the Rook and possible the Queen.

### All other dual threat combinations

* Can corner as if there was only a single threat, requiring some moves to unlock at least one of the figures and possibly requiring additional obstacles to cover the additional figure.

---

> Best case solution require at least 7 moves.

# Some 7 turn solutions not yet covered by others:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Qg4 Ke7 3.Qxd7+ Kxd7 4.Ke2 Kd6 5.Kf3 Ke6 6.Kg4 Kd7 7.Kf5 Kd6#

```

```
[FEN ""]
1.f4 d5 2.g4 Kd7 3.g5 Ke6 4.Kf2 Kf5 5.Kg3 Ke6 6.Kg4 Kd7 7.Kf5 Kd6#

```

```
[FEN ""]
1.f3 d5 2.Kf2 Kd7 3.Kg3 Ke6 4.Kh3 Kd7 5.d3 Ke6 6.Bf4 Kf5 7.Bg3 Kg5#

```
> 47 votes

# Answer
Just to prove that this is possible, here's an opening bid of **9** moves. It's ugly because black makes several time wasting moves, but white needs to get his king to somewhere where it can be mated and also remove black's pawn (I don't see how to get a mating position with 7 black pawns on their original squares), so it takes time.

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Ke2 Ke7 3.Kf3 Ke6 4.Kg3 Kf6 5.Qg4 Ke7 6.Qxd7+ Kf6 7.Qa4 Ke7 8.Kh4 Kf6 9.g3 Kg6#

```

Evargalo improved on this within five minutes, but I feel it doesn't do any harm to keep this answer too.
> 15 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, problems
---


title: What happened to the Giuoco Pianissimo?

text:
# Question
Title: What happened to the Giuoco Pianissimo?
Throughout a fairly long chess career, I have always regarded 4.d3 after 1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 Nc6, 3.Bc4 Bc5 as a good beginner's move but not threatening, and I have felt sure that most strong players shared this opinion. Quite suddenly, 3.Bc4 and 4.d3 have become the choice of very many top players. In the recent Isle of Man tournament there were days when the top boards looked like a junior scholastic tournament (but with very few examples on the lower boards). I don't see a big difference between these games and typical 19th century games.

How did this happen? What has changed? Is there somebody out there who has been paying more attention than I have?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I agree with you. Players of all level play the Italian, and especially the `4. d3` line because they have read 2750+ players do so to avoid "drawing" (which is true at this level) lines aka Berlin Defense, as stated by Dag Oskar.

I see a bunch of 1500 rated players playing these lines, shuffling around trying to get something out of it, with no understanding of what is going on. I don't really see the point to be honest. This is true that the Italian has some bite if you know what you do, but the Giuco Piano/Pianissimo tend to generalize way too much. Personally, I tend to avoid it from move one `1...c5` ;) because I want to play chess. I'll play `1...e5` again when the Italian will be out of fashion.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chess follows fashion trends too, especially when a top tier player dusts off an old almost forgotten opening or variation, and wins with it. Often a chess opening stops being played simply because people are tired of it, not because there's something wrong with it.

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


# Question
Title: Which is better for an improving amateur to play even better: correspondence chess or faster time controls[both online]?
Currently, I do the following in order to improve my chess:

* Play several (currently 9) correspondence chess games simultaneously on Chess.com.
* Do tactics and puzzles regularly on Lichess.com and Chess.com.
* Play occasionally against the computer (though not full strength) in rapid time controls (10|15).

I chose to play correspondence chess as it provides me a considerably good amount of time to think, and hence play to my best.

I also find that correspondence chess is easier to manage, as I don't have to be online throughout the game.

The thing is, correspondence chess moves so slowly, I feel that it would take me years to complete two dozen games (and hence improve my game).

## My questions

So is it a good idea

* to play faster time controls too (online),
* or to increase the number of simultaneous correspondence chess games I play?

If the second course of action is better, how many games should I (**optimally**) play simultaneously to increase my performance?

If the first is better, what time control is the most suited to my need?

## Note

Information that could be of some use to potential answerers.

* I've heard that Blitz and Bullet chess aren't really good for learners.
* My rating was between 1200 and 1300 in the rapid time control on Chess.com (before my data got erased).
* My training (puzzles) reading online Lichess reached 1903 before falling to 1842, after which I've been inactive for quite a while.

# Answer
Some combination of both.

Rapid/Blitz helps a lot on opening to middlegame play. You play a lot of games, see many variations and be familiar with your choice of opening and their middlegame plans. It will also help on typical endgame, eg how to draw with minor vs Rook, the Lucena, Phillidor, etc. By simply playing a lot, you improve on the mechanical part of the skill set. (Which is often undervalued by players who have already gone past this stage, hence the advice "blitz is bad for improving")

Of course, don't only play fast games. Play games where you at least always have enough time to calculate forcing lines. After that, check the strategical ideas you know of. Strategical ideas come from tutor/book/post game analysis and experience. You can't invent it during a game, not before you are a GM. If you don't know it, having infinite time won't help.

Basically IMO, play as many games as you can so that you can put the stuff you learned into practice, lots of practice. And analyse your games!
> 4 votes

# Answer
Correspondence chess will do more to improve the quality of your game. That is, your moves will be a lot more thoughtful and deliberate, and so will your opponent's. When you lose, it will probably be due to a subtle mistake beyond your ordinary comprehension (have better players point out where and why you lost).

That said, "fast" games may do more to improve your *playing* strength. There will be times when you will "under the gun" and make "stupid" mistakes under time pressure. In the short run, at least, minimizing such mistakes will do more to improve your rating.
> 6 votes

# Answer
You seem to have the incorrect idea that playing chess is how to improve. That is a completely wrong idea. You play chess to DEMONSTRATE your skill, not improve it.

The basic way to increase ability is to systematically analyze thematic positions. Correspondence chess is useful in this respect because you can spend hours analyzing the key positions. Of course, if you do not spend time analyzing while you are playing correspondence chess, then it is useless. The most famous school of chess, the Botvinnik School of Chess, that trained generations of Soviet players, such as Garry Kasparov, worked by sending positions to the students by mail and the students would have to analyze the positions and send back their work.

I would note that the effect of doing disciplined analysis has had a critical impact on the skill of many famous players. For example, in 1964-1965 Bobby Fischer wrote the book "My 60 Memorable Games" which is hundreds of pages of detailed analysis of his own games. Writing this book took Fischer from being "just" one of the world's best into a full class ahead of everyone else--a huge increase in strength. Also, Jan Timman wrote a book called the "Art of Analysis". Before this book, Timman was just a strong grandmaster, but after he wrote the book he became a world championship candidate. Alexander Alekhine became the strongest player in the world after writing his book ("My Best Games of Chess"). There are other similar examples.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Usually chess training patterns are specific to an individual. What worked for me may not work for you. But, here's what I have found out personally- I did not find correspondence games to be helpful to improve my long time control games (time controls like 60/10 or 30/30), because the time management aspect is way different! In correspondence style games, I used to think of variations for 15-20 minutes, which one can never ever afford in a long time control game. My aim was to improve my long time control games and the associated time management and hence I stopped playing correspondence games. Since time management is such an important part of the game, training for specific time controls is definitely the way to go. The aspect of improving the understanding of your game can be done by studying your own games (mistakes) and practice.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I believe that doing fast-paced games can allow you to be more successful in chess. Doing these types of games trains your minds to move faster during a normal game of chess, and gets you coming up with better strategies during a long paced game.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: tactics, online-chess, correspondence-chess
---


# Question
Title: How many pieces would you sack for a queen?
I recently played a game where I sacked a knight and a rook for a queen and pawn. That got me thinking, how many pieces would you sack for a queen?

The reason I am not interested in theories is because I've seen many super GMs who sacked everything for a queen and won, I think that a queen is worth much more than 9pts, and that the player who loses his queen doesn't stand a chance in most cases, unless he has some mating attack or a strong passed pawn. So I want to consider an example about a handicapped chess match, right from the start.

Say there's a handicapped chess where each player removes few pieces, one player removes his queen, how many pieces can the other player remove from the board? The result should be a win for the first player. The match is between two computers of similar strength, does it get more equal than that? I don't think so.

I want to see the PGN behind the theory - take from one player two rooks and take from the other a queen, rook equal 5 pawns so in theory, the one who lost his queen should be better and I doubt it because he won't be able to activate the rooks fast enough.

# Answer
Sacrificing queen depends on things sacrifice when-

**If there is a forced mate**

**Pieces are connected**

i.e. even after sacrificing Queen your position will not collapse.In this case you can go for pieces which will help you to grab the position. Which piece to sacrifice is completely dependent on the position. while sacrifice of queen completely depends on position of game i.e. is your opponent down on time or may be he may able to manage.

if you say Handicap CHESS 2 Rooks are fine and rest depends on your Skill
> 2 votes

# Answer
I would sack everything for anything if I could see it was a forced mate.

The 'points' you're referring to are general guidelines only, and completely dependent on the position. For example, both a Knight and a Bishop are worth 3 points. In a very closed position a Knight is FAR stronger than a Bishop, and vice-versa. All pawns are worth one point, but a center pawn is generally stronger than a side pawn, and of course they all get stronger as they advance (and if they have a neighbor for support).

Similarly, in an open position two Rooks can be stronger than a queen and a pawn, but in a closed position all bets are off.

Now, as far as your question, 'if one player removes his queen, how many pieces can the other player remove from the board?', I assume you're talking about in the opening, before play has started? In that case, removing early activated pieces and central pawns will give the queen an early advantage, which would likely decide the game.

For example, if you remove both bishops and three center pawns, the non-queen side will have the early advantage (too much for a single queen to defend). But if you remove two rooks, then the queen should have the advantage since the rooks normally don't come into play until the middle game, when lines start to open up.
> 1 votes

# Answer
If I could see that it would lead me to a mate, I would sack everything for a queen.

I have played multiple games in which I won by sacking many of my pieces for a queen. The only thing that you have to worry about is if the player tries to go for a stalemate.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: tactics, queens, sacrifice
---


title: Draw, or discovered check

text:
# Question
Title: Draw, or discovered check
It's my move. All I have is a king. The opponent has a rook and a queen. I can't move without going into check. Is this a draw?

# Answer
> 6 votes
That's the definition of a "stalemate", which is a draw, i.e. if it's your turn to move and your lone king has no legal move. It can also happen in other situations, such as for example if you also have blocked pawns on the board in addition to the king, since you will still have no legal move. This is often the last resort of the novice, the hope that his opponent will let him obtain such a position. If you are the player with the rook and queen, or even just a queen, in such a situation, you must be careful to always leave your opponent's king a space to move to if you don't have an immediate mate to avoid this occurring. Of course, it's much less likely that you can get a stalemate against a more skilled opponent, although some strong players have "swindled" their equally strong opponents out of a win thereby, one famous case being a long-ago game between Grandmasters Larry Evans and Samuel Reshevsky.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Your description of the situation is too incomplete for us to answer.

1. If your king is **not under check** where it stands right now, then the situation is called a stalemate. The game is drawn.
2. If your king **is under check** where it stands right now, then the situation is called a checkmate. The game is lost for you, won for your opponent.

By the way, the appelation "discovered check" in the question's title is inappropriate here, it means something totally different.

# Answer
> 2 votes
This situation is called a stalemate.

Webster Dictionary defines a stalemate as "a position counting as a draw, in which a player is not in check but cannot move except into check."

In your situation, that would be considered a stalemate.

---
Tags: rules
---


# Question
Title: Ruy Lopez 3...a6 & 6...Bc5 setup - a4 vs c3+d4 idea for White?
Here's the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O b5 6.Bb3 Bc5

```

      [StartPly "12"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O b5 6.Bb3 Bc5

```

There are 2 main continuations for White: 7.c3 (the most obvious imho) and 7.a4. Actually there's also the modestly looking 7.d3 which is good, no doubt, but I'm not interested in the d3 system at the moment)

**What are the pros and cons of the the both moves/lines?**

And what does White really achieve (or try to achieve) by attacking the pawn on b5? I understand it cannot be recaptured by the a-pawn, so Black would normally defend it with his rook or go Bb7. Second, I'd also like to understand why 7...b4 is bad from positional point of view.

Also, sometimes White precedes a4 with c3. So, instead of playing a4 right away he waits for 7...d6 and only then plays 8.a4 (again instead of the obvious to me 8.d4). **What is the idea here?**

```

      [StartPly "15"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.c3 d6 8.a4

```

Thank you.

# Answer
After the logical 7.c3 d6 8.d4, black should play 8....Bb6, with the idea 0-0, Re8, Bb7/g4, building up pressure against white's center. Also after 8.a4 Bg4!, pinning the knight and protecting the rook on a8, black should be fine.

Therefore, the main line is 7.a4, bringing the rook into play with an extra tempo. After 7....b4, white obtains the advantage by 8.Nxe5! Nxe5 9.d4 Bxd4 10.Qxd4, attacking the pawn on b4. Note the difference with 7.Nxe5, where black is fine after 7....Nxe5 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Qxd4 d6.

Instead of 7....b4, the main line is 7....Rb8 and the game often continues with 8.c3 d6 9.d4 Bb6. This position can also be reached by 7.c3 d6 8.d4 Bb6 9.a4 Rb8. However, this move order unnecessarily gives black the extra option of 9....Bg4.

Recently, during the international tournament of the Isle Of Man, two top-level games were played that are important for the current theoretical status of the Ruy Lopez Arkhangelsk.

In the game Fabiano Caruana - Gawain Jones, black followed the recommendation given in a video series by Peter Svidler. However, during his home preparation, white found the refutation at move 23(!) and won the game (see reports on Chess.com and ChessBase.com).

Remarkably, the very next round, Magnus Carlsen repeated the same opening against Caruana. He deviated at move 14, but again Caruana had prepared a strong novelty. Nevertheless, Carlsen won (see reports on Chess.com and ChessBase.com).

**Edit:** In both games, Caruana chose the move order 7.c3 d6 8.a4, allowing 8....Bg4. Although this probably has a reason, I have no idea why this move order would be more precise.

```

      [StartPly "12"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.a4 (7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Qxd4 d6)(7.c3 d6 8.d4 (8.a4 Bg4) Bb6 9.a4 Bg4) Rb8 (7...b4 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.d4 Bxd4 10.Qxd4) 8.c3 d6 9.d4 Bb6

```
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, 1.e4, ruy-lopez
---


# Question
Title: What are signs of achieving Master strength?
Although even Masters can play very badly at times, especially against other Masters, and apart from ELO ratings, how to you get the feeling that you are definitely of "Master" strength, and no longer of "Expert" strength?

# Answer
> 5 votes
If a player is truly stronger than you independent of his current form, he is able to outplay you even if you don't overlook a single important tactic. If he is in bad form he will probably overlook tactics himself and let you back into the game, but you will still be outplayed in the stretches between his little blunders.

Once you don't have this feeling anymore of drifting into trouble without knowing why when playing against master players, and once you are able to just outplay weaker players by hand, you can be pretty sure that you have reached a master's level of understanding. Your Elo should follow suit.

# Answer
> 4 votes
You get a sense you are master strength when you are playing over GM games and can actually understand the reason behind the majority of their moves as well as being able to predict a large number of them. When playing against master level players you don't feel outclassed and feel like they aren't doing anything you wouldnt expect. Lastly you don't have any huge weaknesses in your game. You might be weaker in some areas but overall your opening, middlegame, and endgame are all mostly strong.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The so called 'Master Strength' that you are talking about is achieved through a long period of practice. By practice, I don't just mean games, but tactical puzzles that help improve strategy and skill. I hope that I managed to answer your question.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Games are lost in two ways; by outright errors, which lose immediately, and by "slack" (suboptimal) moves, which cause your position to erode over time.

Most "good" games (the ones free of obvious errors) are races. E.g. races to attack each others' kings or to queen your pawns. A better player, by definition, will win most races. A weaker player will lose a move here and there, play a "good" (solid) game, and still lose.

You are a master when you can keep up (win some races, draw most others) with masters. You also be able to edge out experts in most races, except on a bad day.

---
Tags: international-master
---


title: Good apps for engine vs engine matches

text:
# Question
Title: Good apps for engine vs engine matches
I'd like to hold engine vs engine matches on my phone, and am looking for an app which could help me do this. Does Droidfish support matches between two different engines?

If not, could someone name an app available on Play Store (with a good UI) which, in addition to allowing the usual functions of game analysis and playing against engines, supports engine vs engine matches, the two engines being different?

In short, I want something like Droidfish, with an additional feature to hold engine vs engine matches, like one can on Arena.

# Answer
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.chess&hl=en

Chess for Android has it, and it's the more or less industry standard for running engine matches on an Android mobile device.

I'm not sure if Droidfish can do it, somebody else might answer you.
> 2 votes

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


# Question
Title: What is a good line against the King's Indian Defense for blitz play?
I am looking for a line as White against the King's Indian Defense to play in blitz. With the short time I find it hard to play the lines where White might be winning on the queenside, but has to endure an attack on his king. I've looked at the Smyslov line, but I don't understand what White is trying to do there. I would consider pure English type lines or Reti if there is a good recommendation.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I think a good way of preventing Black's kingside play is the Makogonov (or Makagonov) variation:

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.h3

```

This is more strategical than tactical, and most of the times prevents Black's ..f5 by playing g4 with White! Not to attack, but to restrain.

After 5..0-0 you can choose:

1. either a setup with 6.Nf3,
2. or first develop the queen's bishop (6.Bg5), keeping the option open of playing Nf3 or Nge2.

For the first setup, reply all games played by Chessexplained, he has a tremendous score with this variation, explaining plans while playing: https://www.youtube.com/user/Chessexplained/search?query=makogonov. I especially liked

For the second, more flexible, setup, read John Watson's "A strategic opening repertoire for White".

Good luck!

# Answer
> 2 votes
In general there is no easy way around the King's Indian: it is a highly theoretical opening that players must know how to play against.

> With the short time I find it hard to play the lines where White might be winning on the queenside, but has too endure an attack on his king

Well, if you know the opening lines well enough it really makes no difference what the time control is, as in any case the first 10-15 moves are (somehow) forced. This said, the standard main-main line (Mar de la Plata variation) for White against the King's Indian is indeed an attack against Black's Queen side (especially against c5 or by playing Be3-Nb5 pointing at a7) where White tries to move the focus elsewhere to counterattack what Black is carrying out on the King's side: in this respect the plan is conceptually easy, in the sense that especially in a blitz game you already know where your pieces go and what they must attack without having to actually think of a plan.

However:

> I've looked at the Smyslov line, but I don't understand what White is trying to do there

the Smyslov line is indeed one way to play it without all the hassle that the main line involves: White tries to make ...e5 somewhat more difficult (by pinning the f6 Knight) and to avoid the standard maneuver Ne8-f5 (as the Knight is pinned on the Queen). As such, Black usually tries to un-pin with h6-g5 and in that case it is White to start carrying an attack on the King's side against the prematurely exposed g-h pawns of Black's; the play anyway is to be studied line by line (do not take the above as a general recipe).

Another attempt may be the Panno variation (fianchetto variation), where the structure g3-Bg2 makes it more difficult for Black to break open the King's side checkmating the White King very fast. There is a didactic video here that may give you a taste thereof (but there is a lot of free GM content elsewhere too).

# Answer
> 2 votes
You could try to take a look at the Exchange Variation. I have used it a few times in blitz and tournaments. It's easy to pick up and involves a few complications in the opening that if Black is not familiar with, may cause them to use up precious time. Plus, it has the psychological advantage that most KID players are looking for a complex fight and this makes them play a very different kind of game, as it involves an early Queen exchange.

Granted, you have to like those kind of positions!

# Answer
> 1 votes
An effective blitz approach is to play the 150 Attack / Barry Attack.

This means not playing c4 on move 2. Instead play Bf4 then Nc3 and play the 150 (e4, Qd2, 0-0-0, Bh6, h4, h5, in some order followed by checkmate) in the case black doesn't play d5. In the case black does play d5 then play the Barry Attack with moves like e3, h4, etc. again with the idea of blasting open the h file and checkmating black's castled king.

This is a crude attempt to take black away from standard KID lines and blow him out of the water if he doesn't know what he is doing and just plays stereotypical KID moves, perfect for blitz if you do some preparation first.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I merely depends on what kind of a blitz player you are. If your main point is to avoid learning complicated opening lines, you can try and play schemes with g3, e.g. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 d6 \[you would also need to have an idea how to play against 4...d5\] 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 etc.

There *is* a lot of theory in these variations, but it is more dispendable than in the main lines. Thanks to your kingside fianchetto you are not in danger of a direct kingside attack, so it is much easier to naviguate with general concepts (fight for the center!) and without specific knowledge.

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


title: Should captured pieces remain visible?

text:
# Question
Title: Should captured pieces remain visible?
I don't think there's a rule about this, but maybe it's a matter of etiquette. Nearly every player I've encountered puts the pieces they capture next to the board, but I've met some who like to store the pieces as soon as they capture them (maybe they are "neat freaks"? :-).

I found this a bit unsettling, but maybe it's just me? I must admit that I semi-consciously use the captured pieces for counting in the early parts of the game, when most of the pieces are still on the board. I also suppose that it could be inconvenient to have to ask the other player to dig out your dead queen in case of a promotion (that situation didn't arise in my experience, however).

# Answer
There is certainly no explicit rule about this, and players often fiddle with captured pieces (e.g. Boris Gelfand can often be seen twirling a pawn by its head).

However, pieces should remain accessible to your opponent in case of a promotion, particularly in blitz; at some events (usually the higher level), players are given an extra queen, but not all tournament organizers have that many extra queens!

Having said so, it looks like your question is in the context of a friendly game, presumably where the box/pouch is just next to the board. In that case, if you need to see the captured pieces as a counting aid, just ask!
> 5 votes

---
Tags: etiquette
---


title: Why not Ng4 in Sicilian after Nf3?

text:
# Question
Title: Why not Ng4 in Sicilian after Nf3?
After

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nf3

```

(which is trendy at top level in 2017) I am wondering why Black doesn't play 7...Ng4. I only found a couple old games with 7...Ng4, and both ended in a draw.

# Answer
6...Ng4 doesn't look good at all.

**Tactical flaw:**

Black is behind in development, so White should aim for direct play with 7.Bg5 and then:

* 7...f6 8.Bc1 \[8.Bh4\] Be6 9.h3 Nh6 10.Bxh6 gh6 11.Nh4 \[11.Be2\] and Black has huge weaknesses on the light squares.
* 7...Be7 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Nd5 \[9.Qd2, 9.Bc4\] Qd8 10.Bc4 with a nice bind is probably the lesser evil for Black.
* 7...Qb6 8.Qd2 \[or 8.Bh4 Qxb2? 9.Nd5 and Black cannot block Nc7+\] Qxb2 is too greedy: 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.Nd5 Qc5 11.h3, or 11.Be3 and 12.Nb6 winning material, or 11.Rb3 with a huge attack.

**Strategic reason:**

It the structure with a hole on d5, the fight for this white square is essential and probably more important than the bishop pair. White often plays Bg5xf6 in Boleslavsky, Najdorf and Svechnikov variations. Thus trading the knight for the Be3 is not a big achievement, especiallly at the cost of two tempi, even if White plays the simple 7.Qd2 Nxe3 8.Qxe3 Be6 9.0-0-0 or 9.Ng5.
> 3 votes

# Answer
If black wants to play Ng4 he could do this one move earlier (which is the normal way to do it), when after 6 .. Ng4, white has only two options to prevent his bishop from being exchanged:

* 7 Bc1 which can lead to a repetition 7 ... Nf6 8. Be3 Ng4 ....

or

* 7 Bg5 which is usually answered by 7... h6 8 Bh4 g5 9 Bg3 Bg7 and black gains a very nice bishop on g7 and some space on the kingside

Playing 7... Ng4 (after 6 ... e5 7 Nf3) could be answered by 8 Bg5 attacking the queen which was not possible before and also playing h6-g5 does not make sense anymore since the long diagonal is blocked. With the hole on d5 and the misplaced knight on g4, black's position
> -1 votes

---
Tags: opening, najdorf
---


title: Recommended software for ICCF play?

text:
# Question
Title: Recommended software for ICCF play?
I am interested in playing correspondence chess online through the ICCF. It is my understanding that using computers is not only allowed, but almost mandatory. My question is: What all kinds of software are needed to be successful, and what are the best software packages to use in each category? I know you need an engine, a database, and some kind of analysis program, but which ones are best? I'd be interested in hearing about both freeware as well as commercial programs.

Thanks for any help! Chris =)

# Answer
The best engine to use for analysis is most likely stockfish. Works with multiple procs, probably the strongest tactically. And as a bonus, it's free (but you should get a good UCI. I use Fritz UCI which is ok. An UCI that shows multiple lines of analysis at the same time is kinda mandatory). Imo using an engine in correspondance chess is only interesting if you're strong enough to understand easily why the program makes the choices he makes. ie 2000+ fide at least. You will also notice some of their evaluation function flaws : for instance overvaluing lines which win a pawn but give opposite color bishops, for stockfish. Also sometimes giving more value to prophylactic moves than line opening moves, when in fact it's better to go for the lines opening immediately (it doesn't always realize how strong it can be because of horizons effects).
> 6 votes

# Answer
For computer that I am aware of: Chessbase, Aquarium, SCID, (I am trying to get it to work with SCID vs. PC)

For Android that I am aware of: Your Move Correspondence Chess https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pereira.yourmove&hl=en

For Android, I use the app mentioned. Works great.

For computer, I use SCID vs. PC. I am hoping to configure it right. If not I plan on switching to SCID strictly for ICCF play. Regardless you will need to contact ICCF help desk to get the XFCC webservice url.

Hopes this helps.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, software, database, correspondence-chess
---


# Question
Title: Stockfish given indefinite computing power, could it beat grandmasters with only a king and 8 pawns, the GMs having all standard pieces?
Has this type of situation been mathematically solved? Is there a solved endgame somewhere that probably describes this to a certain degree of statistical precision?

# Answer
So we have Stockfish with 8 pawns + king on one side, versus GM with all the pieces on the other?

You wonder if there is any chance of Stockfish winning that game?

Sorry to disappoint you, but the answer is resounding no.

Human has 7 extra pieces -\> 2 bishops + 2 knights + 2 rooks + a queen.

The easiest way for a human to win is to trade all of their pieces for computer's pawns -\> one piece sacrifices itself for one pawn.

Since we have 7 pieces, and computer has 8 pawns, after human sacrifices each piece for an opposing pawn, computer is left with a single pawn while human player has 8 pawns left.

At this point, human will just start rolling pawns to exchange the last remaining pawn. At that point human has 7 pawns + a king versus computer's lone king, which even a child can win effortlessly.

Below is a small example game I played vs Stockfish:

```
[FEN "4k3/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1"]

1. e4 e6 2. Bc4 Ke7 3. Bxe6 fxe6 4. Qg4 Kf7 5. Qxe6+ Kxe6 6. d4 Ke7 7. Bf4 Kd8 8. Bxc7+ Kxc7 9. Nc3 Kc8 10. Nb5 Kb8 11. Nxa7 Kxa7 12. Nf3 g6 13. Ne5 d6 14. Nxg6 hxg6 15. O-O-O Kb6 16. Rd3 Kc6 17. Rb3 b6 18. Rxb6+ Kxb6 19. h4 Kc6 20. Rh3 Kd7 21. Rg3 Ke6 22. Kd2 Kf6 23. Rxg6+ Kxg6 24. e5 d5 25. c4 dxc4 26. Kc3 Kh5 27. g3 Kg4 28. Kxc4 Kf5 29. a4

```

Human player can win this in so many ways, but I have just mentioned a "no brainer" to illustrate just how hopeless is computer's position.
> 3 votes

# Answer
After your question I was wondering if I can win stockfish in full power by having two more rooks and a knight and a bishop in the starting position. It took me about 50 moves but it was not hard at all. You can try it yourself, just trade the pieces away. I think masters can win stockfish just by having two extra pawns or a piece more compared to the stockfish.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The old time.of handycap chess is over except against weak players. Carlsen would lose 99% of his games with a knight handycap against a decent IM in serious games. In rapids or.in blitz, he'd win a bit more but would still have a hard time. And the same applies if Stockfish starts down a knight against Carlsen in long games, he'd win 1% or so, on rare blunders, and only if specidfifically reprogrammed to try to reach complex situations, avoiding too symetric openings.
> 1 votes

# Answer
All anyone in this position needs to do is trade all the pawns. Then promote any leftover pawns or mate the opponent’s king with the pieces left over.

I’m not sure this has been “solved” but it is unlikely that this would be feasible for the computer.
> 0 votes

# Answer
It will be enough advantage for a GM to even be up 2 rooks and a queen. They can force trades and easily go into a winning endgame.
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: Are there any 'romantic' chess programs?
Are there any chess programs, which play gambits? I have two solutions in mind:

1. It tries to offer situations where one of your moves looks quite promising on the short term (3-5 moves), but later it turns out to be disastrous.

Or the opposite:

2. It tries to reach positions, which look bad for you, but there's a single line (hard to find), which can save the day.

I guess the difficulty of writing such programs can be that it's not trivial to decide which lines are easy to be found by a human and which aren't. (And that also depends on the skills of the player, so some parameters would be required.)

# Answer
Houdini may be worthwhile checking out. See link.

*http://www.cruxis.com/chess/houdini.htm (4th paragraph down)*

> "The Chess Club Live Facebook page phrased it like this: "If there ever was a computer descendant of the romantic players like Morphy, Anderssen, Spielmann, Marshall, Bogoljubow, Tal, Nezhmetdinov, Shirov, Morozevich it would be Houdini. Houdini is the current World number 1 chess engine and plays in a very romantic style."

*I didn't notice when the quote was from because the last time in the TCEC Championship that Houdini was #1 was 2013.*

I use Houdini 5. I can attest to the romantic style of play. Quite a change when you are used to seeing how Komodo or Stockfish play. Settings are relatively user friendly.

It is a commercial engine but the developers do offer Houdini 1.5 for free.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Stockfish, among several others (e.g. Fritz), has an aggressiveness parameter; you'll want to look in the 'Play Style' setting, or words to that effect, in the UCI.

A more aggressive engine has a higher propensity to make potentially unsound material sacrifices; it translates to positions where accurate play leads to an advantage, though assessing the ease of finding the refutation is beyond me.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: software, gambits
---


# Question
Title: What influenced the development of the King's Indian Defense?
The King's Indian Defense is characterized by the moves `1. d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6`. (As opposed to `2...e6`, with the intention of developing the Bishop to the Queen-side.) Black aims for a strong King-side offense with sharp tactical play. The Classical line:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5

```

Nimzowitsch and others of the hypermodern school popularized the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian defenses early in the 20th Century. The King's Indian was known, but was seen far less frequently until David Bronstein started playing it in the 1940s and 50s.

So, to the question, what factors brought the King's Indian to prominence aside from Bronstein? What developments in theory advanced its use compared to the other Indian defenses?

(To clarify: I'm coming at this as someone who's unrated and no more than a casual player at best. I'm looking more here for the historical aspects and understanding of the times, though I won't turn down discussion of modern theory.

Additionally, I'm aware that this is subjective. I'm fairly confident it fits into "good-subjective", given the nature of Chess.SE. There hasn't been any major discussion on the KID here, and I'd like to see what the minds here have to say about it, given how important it is in modern play.)

# Answer
In all the Indian Defenses, in general, Black allows White to occupy the centre with his pawns.

Nonetheless, in Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian Defense Black has many moves to attack White's pawn centre very early in the game, thus White cannot gain too much space.

King's Indian Defense (and Gruenfeld Defense), on the other side, really do not care that much for the first 4-5 moves of White, so that he can occupy the centre with an "horde" of pawns (see for example the Classical Variation, the Saemisch Variation or the Four Pawns Attack), with a huge advantage of space.

Since hypermodern principles in chess were born only in early 20th century, they were not universally accepted before '40s. And having such a big space disadvantage in the opening was seen with suspicion (if not explicitly considered "strategically losing"). That's why, in my opinion, KID had to wait to be considered consistent enough to be played regularly by top players.
> 10 votes

# Answer
A first step for development of the King's Indian Defense was reached in the beginning of the 1930's. Until then it was thought that the huge space advantage in the four pawns attack gave White a free ride, but Max Euwe proved that Black's activity compensate for it in Benoni schemes with ...c5, ...e6, ...exd5.

In the beginning of the 1950's, beside Bronstein, several other players made a huge contribution to the boom of the KID : Gligoric, Najdorf, Geller, Szabo, to name a few.

After the tournaments of Mar del Plata 1953 (won by Gligoric, and which gave its name to an important and attractive variation) and Zurich 1953 (with Kotov's immortal game), the opening gained its new status and became not only "fashionable" but also "respectable".

Finally, Garry Kasparov was the first player to use the King's Indian as its main defense during a World Championship match when he successfully defended his title against Anatoly Karpov in Lyon in 1990.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, history, theory, kings-indian
---


title: Careers in Chess

text:
# Question
Title: Careers in Chess
What are the different career options in Chess? The obvious and famous one is being a professional player, and the next best one is that of a chess coach. What are the other careers that involve chess?

# Answer
> 7 votes
My list of answers after much thinking..

Chess careers:

* Professional players
* Coaches
* Preparation and playing partners
* Arbiters
* Chess writers
* Chess photographers
* Chess officials for federations
* Chess programmers
* Chess commentators
* Chess journalist
* Managers - for players
* Columists
* Chess artists - people who make wooden art work ?
* chess contractors (or freelancers) - like for chess based movie or startup projects. example: Marketing for a chess startup, research for a movie, etc.

UPDATES based on suggestions:

* Chess composer
* Tournament director
* Staffs for chess related organization, federation, etc. -- which can actually be a career, than a mere stream of income.

Interesting observations: Most of the suggestions in this list can't stand out alone as a career, but would need the support of other projects to make a decent living.

**Comments are welcome. I'll update this thread based on your feedback/suggestion**

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chess software programmers is missing in the list. I can give you the following names (google them if you want to know more):

* Larry Kaufman
* Mark Lefler
* Mark Uniacke
* Robert Hyatt

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess photographer is popular these days, but not a full-time career.
Operator of digital boards (think Lennart Ootes)
(Selling chess books, but it's debatable)

---
Tags: careers
---


# Question
Title: Correctness of the lichess training solution (Puzzle:63063)
I'm a beginner and right now rated 1850 in on lichess training; so I'm a very novice player. I try to solve some training examples, and though sometimes I do not feel convinced by the solution given by the computer, I continue. Here is an example where I felt the solution was absolutely wrong. Below are the pictures

Why did the computer save the queen rather than killing the knight on g3 with the pawn on h2?

I thought of this step when solving it but thought it was of no use. But the solution given left me wondering.

# Answer
In case of 16.hxg3, Black plays 16...Qxg3+ when White has only two legal moves:

* 17.Kh1 Rf6 followed by 18...Rh6 is a quick checkmate.
* 17.Qg2 Qxe3+ and after the check is parried Black can already take back his piece with 18...Qxd3 (with already three extra pawns as a reward), or continue the attack with 18...Rf6. He's completely winning in both cases.

This exercise is a typical case of a demolition sacrifice: you give your knight on g3 to rip the opponent king of its protective pawns and mount a decisive attack.
> 7 votes

# Answer
lichess's puzzles are computer-generated, in the sense that they are selected by an algorithm from positions arising in games between humans. The solution expected is the engine's top choice. In particular, when the engine defends, it picks the best move according to the engine's evaluation.

Thus, in this case, while the most testing move is 16.hxg3, it leads to a worse position (according to the engine's assessment) than 16.Qg2 (assuming best play by both sides), so the engine defends with the latter move instead.

Of course, if this puzzle was given to you by a human, the move given for white would be 16.hxg3, and you would need to show that you found 16...Rf6. But it's not, and the algorithm that generates these puzzles isn't smart enough to differentiate between the best defense, and the most testing response.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, lichess
---


# Question
Title: Python-chess is_zeroing and is_capture operation outputs
I'm using python-chess to analyze a game.

I have my code like this, and I expect 3 boolean outputs.

```
print("is_castling: " + unicode(board.is_castling(node.move)));
print("is_zeroing: " + unicode(board.is_zeroing(node.move)));
print("is_capture: " + unicode(board.is_capture(node.move)));

```

But this is what I get.

```
is_castling: False
is_zeroing: 4194304
is_capture: 4194304

```

What am I missing here?

# Answer
The problem was that the moves were tested in the context of the new board (after the move). But the correct way is that they should be tested with the board they were played on.

See the discussion here.

https://github.com/niklasf/python-chess/issues/169
> 1 votes

# Answer
The code for those routines fairly liberally uses bitwise-and (&) rather than boolean-and (and) for the logical expressions, so I assume integer values rather than booleans are being returned. I would guess that you would see something similar with is\_castling if castling is possible; the False value is returned explicitly rather than being the result of an expression evaluation.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Making a few tests with this package in the shell, is-zeroing seems to work fine and returns a boolean :

> import chess
>
> b=chess.Board()
>
> b.push\_san("Nf3")

Move.from\_uci('g1f3')

> b.push\_san("Nc6")

Move.from\_uci('b8c6')

> b.push\_san("Ne5")

Move.from\_uci('f3e5')

> m=chess.Move(42,36)
>
> flag = b.is\_zeroing(m)
>
> print(flag)

True

> m=chess.Move(49,41)
>
> flag=b.is\_zeroing(m)
>
> print(flag)

True

> m=chess.Move(42,32)
>
> flag=b.is\_zeroing(m)
>
> print(flag)

False

> print("Nc6-a5 is not a capture nor a pawn move : " + str(flag))

Nc6-a5 is not a capture nor a pawn move : False

Did you try with str(board.is\_zeroing(node.move)) ? To print both a string and a boolean in the same print, you need to turn the boolean intro a string. By the way what version of python do you use? From searching a bit, it seems python 3+ already stores strings in UTF8 and doesn't have the unicode() function. So no idea how the unicode() function works. But if your program gives weird results for the is\_zeroing function and if it's the same using str(), then you might have to look into the parameters you are sending to the is\_zeroing() method (pseudo\_legal move? board not corrupted?).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, programming, python
---


# Question
Title: What is the state of the Panno variation of the King's Indian Defense Saemisch?
In the Saemisch King's Indian

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "10"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O

```

It seems current (2017) literature and practice promotes Black's play 6...c5. What I am wondering is there something wrong with the Panno (6...Nc6 with a6, Rb8, b5) that got players to move to 6...c5 or is it just the current trend?

# Answer
The Panno is a sharp line that has received a lot of attention lately, particularly the variation below where White opens the centre favourably. The variation isn't refuted by any means, but Black players have found this variation to be uncomfortable.

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "12"]

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 g6
3. Nc3 Bg7
4. e4 d6
5. f3 O-O
6. Be3 Nc6
7. Nge2 a6
8. Qd2 Rb8
9. h4 h5
10. O-O-O b5
11. Bh6 Bh6
12. Qxh6 e5
13. dxe5

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, kings-indian, saemisch
---


# Question
Title: Comment/variation with different starting position
When annotating games, I sometimes want to add a comment which starts from a position that is different from the current position.
Like:

```
1. d4 d5 2.c4 { Our previous game went 1.e4 c5 ...}

```

Or:

```
25. Bf3 { Here I remembered a similar position from a famous game: <some fen notation>}

```

When writing/printing this is no problem. But when I want to generate playable pgn for a website, this doesn't work.

Attempting this in pgn would look something like:

```
>[White "Game 1"]
>[Black "?"]
>[Result "*"]
>1. d4 d5 2. c4 (1. e4 c5) *

>[White "Game 2"]
>[Black "?"]
>[Result "*"]
>1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 ([FEN "rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/4P3/2Pp4/5N2/PP2PPPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 4"] 4... Nc6 5. a3 Nge7 ) *

```

However, this format is not accepted by my chess program (Chessbase) and also not according to the PGN standard.

Does the PGN standard support something this?

What should I do in order to manage to generate playable pgn for a website?

# Answer
> 4 votes
You can't do this in PGN, not the way you want it.

There are some tricks that publishers (especially Everyman) use to create their "PGN ebooks":

* They split the book over many different PGN games. You'd say "Here I remembered an earlier game that had a similar position; see X vs Y after this game."
* A variation that starts at move 1 has to start at move 1: `1.d4 ({Our previous game went} 1.e4 c5) 1... d5`
* *Null moves* can be added as `--`, to show threats and such: `1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 ({With the subtle threat} 3... -- 4.Qxf7#)`
* You can have several variatiations all starting with the same move, or all with the null move, as poor man's paragraphs.
* If all else fails, just leave it as text. People still buy paper books so it can't be *that* bad...

Note that the variations I had, with a comment starting before the first move of a variation, may be something that not all software supports; I'm not sure. It used to be possible to enter comments like that with older versions of Scid but newer versions make it hard to get to the point where you are still in a variation, but before its first move. I think it's legal PGN though.

---
Tags: pgn, annotation
---


title: Unfamiliar with this move notation

text:
# Question
Title: Unfamiliar with this move notation
I'm not even sure what to call this one. I'm reading *Caro-Kann Defense: Advance Variation and Gambit System* by Anatoly Karpov.

In the first chapter karpov mentions a move order:

1. e4 c6
2. d4 d5
3. f3

So far so good - the gambit system. Then he mentions black has a few continuations. The one that I'm not sure how to put on my board is:

3. ...de
4. fe e5

I've never seen the notations *de* and *fe* used before. I thought they were for captures but it's very clear karpov is using normal capture notation (with 'x') throughout the book.

How do I understand this notation?

# Answer
de and fe are normal pawn captures. There is no contradiction in writing de and NxB and Nxe5. The "x" is optional.

It would be unusual and inconsistent to write 4. BxNc6 and 4. ... Nc6 in the following - 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nge7 4. BxNc6 Nc6

but if we put it in fen then it works -

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nge7 4. BxNc6 Nc6

```

Note what the latest FIDE Laws of Chess say about this -

> C.9 When a piece makes a capture, an x *may* be inserted between:
>
> C.9.1 the abbreviation of the name of the piece in question and
>
> C.9.2 the square of arrival. Examples: Bxe5, Nxf3, Rxd1, see also C.10.
>
> C.9.3 When a pawn makes a capture, the file of departure must be indicated, then an x *may* be inserted, then the square of arrival. Examples: dxe5, gxf3, axb5. In the case of an ‘en passant’ capture, ‘e.p.’ may be appended to the notation. Example: exd6 e.p.

(Italics added for emphasis)
> 6 votes

# Answer
As well as books, video presentations a lot of times presenters will say "d e" instead of saying "d takes e"

I am trying to provide you with another example of its usage...it appears rather commonly in spoken word as well as text.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: notation, annotation
---


# Question
Title: What was Bobby Fischer's actual chess strength during the 1992 re-match vs. Spassky?
As title above, what was Bobby Fischer's actual chess strength during the 1992 re-match vs. Spassky, apart from all his already legendary past achievements?

# Answer
From wikipedia:

> Fischer's score of 17½ out of 30 (counting draws) against Spassky, rated 2545 at the time, gave him a performance rating of 2645, which would have put him at No. 12 in the world on the July 1992 list.
> 12 votes

---
Tags: fischer, spassky
---


title: how does a uci engine draw or resign?

text:
# Question
Title: how does a uci engine draw or resign?
I am writing a UCI chess AI/engine. It has the ability to draw and resign. How do I communicate this to the uci chess interface? what string shoud i send back to the GUI?

# Answer
> 7 votes
UCI chess engines don't offer/accept a draw, nor resign a position. This is the GUI's responsibility.

You are welcome to add new uci options (`setoption` and `option`) for your engine, but don't expect universe UCI support.

---
Tags: draw, uci, resigning, claim-draw
---


title: Middle game and endgame principles

text:
# Question
Title: Middle game and endgame principles
In the opening, it's helpful for me as a beginner to remember some basic principles: develop your pieces, castle, knights before bishops (generally), don't move the same piece twice, etc. Are there similar, very basic rules of thumb that one can typically adhere to in the middle game and endgame? Or are middlegames and endgames so numerous and distinct that it really depends on the opening, e.g., in $X$, you want to do $y$ and $z$ but in $A$ you want to do $b$ and $c$?

# Answer
> 9 votes
There are quite a lot of basic principles. Whole books have been written on the principles of strategic play, for example. Basis rules are useful and will get you on your way. For more advanced players it is actually more important to understand when to break the rules.

A couple of rules 'off the top of my head':

* A knight on the rim is dim, meaning that it's better to keep your knights centralised than to put them on the edge of the board.
* Loose Pieces Drop Off (LPDO), meaning that unprotected pieces are vulnerable to (double) attack. So keep your pawns and pieces protecting each other.
* The side with less space should exchange pieces (and vice versa).
* The side with an advantage should attack, or he risks losing his advantage.
* If you have a choice in captures with pawns (say h2xg3 or f2xg3), capture towards the center.
* Try to avoid weaknesses in you pawn structure (isolated pawns, doubled pawns, backward pawns).
* Invite everybody to the party, meaning activate all your pieces especially when attacking the enemy king.
* Don't make pawn moves on the side of the board where you are weaker.
* Etc, etc.

Remember that for every rule above there are a lot of exceptions.

For the endgame:

* Activate your king
* Improve your position to the maximum
* When you have the advantage, try to create a second or third weakness
* In rook endings activity (of king and rook) is usually more important than one or two pawns
* Opposite colored bishops endings have a large drawing tendency
* Knight endings have a lot in common with pawn endings
* In queen endings it's more important how far your passed pawn has advanced, than how many passed pawns you have.
* Etc, etc.

When studying chess you will gather a lot of these rules.

---
Tags: strategy, endgame, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: Does chess.com analysis board use my own CPU?
Lichess analysis board uses my own cpu so I am just curious if chess.com also uses my own cpu.I have tried searching but I can't find any information about it.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes, it does. It uses stockfish.js, the Javascript port of Stockfish, which can run on web browsers. You can see stockfish.js mentioned somewhere on the chess.com analysis board. Also, I can tell that the computer fan starts working harder when I run an analysis, and looking at the "top" command shows that the web browser is using 100% CPU.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes and no. Local board analysis definitely use your own CPUs, running the Javascript version of Stockfish. However, the deeper server analysis uses their own computing clusters.

Same with Lichess.

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: How do I take part in an open FIDE tournament?
I currently live in Sudan and I would like to play in the Loyal Open Championship. Details of this tournament can be found here.

Apparently, there is no link to guide me through the registration process. Does the tournament accept random entries? And if so, how do I register, or ask for assistance on registration? I play in the FIDE Online Arena, but I am not rated, nor I ever played a FIDE tournament.

# Answer
Head to the Youth and children Palace:

```
Loyal open
Organizer(s)    Kartoum Chess Federation
Federation  Sudan ( SUD )
Tournament director Khalid Osman
Chief Arbiter   Elatag,Khalid 12200409
Arbiter mohamed awad , Nazar Eltayeb
Time control    90 minutes, 30 sec
Location    Youth and children Palace
Rating calculation  Rating international
Date    2017/11/11 to 2017/11/17

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tournament
---


# Question
Title: Are Elo ratings adjusted after each match, or after each tournament?
I'm aware that the FIDE ratings list is only published once per month. I'm interested in how often the ratings are recalculated internally to FIDE without being published.

Are ratings adjusted match after match, or after every tournament? Even if the ratings are updated once a month, does FIDE count every match, or a whole tournament?

# An example to make my point clear

Consider a three-player, single round robin tournament.

**Player** **Elo**

Roanin Novel 2798

Rigi Hains 2745

Dan H. Yvasin 2784

# Results

**Round 1:** R. Novel (1) beat Rigi Hains (0)

**Round 2:** Rigi Hains (0.5) drew with D.H. Yvasin (0.5)

**Round 3:** D.H. Yvasin (1) drew with R. Novel (1.5)

## My question

If FIDE was calculating the players' ratings, would it first update the players' ratings **match by match**1, or would their rating be adjusted by **counting the tournament as a whole?**2

1 In this case, rating changes after every match.

2 Here we calculate the expected score of each player at the start of the tournament, and compare it with the **final score only.** No rating changes occur between matches.

## The calculations (all assume K=10)

### Method 1 \[Match by match\] (Final ratings in bold)

* After the first match, R. Novel is rated *2802.24* and Rigi is rated *2740.76.*
* After the second match, Rigi is rated **2741.38** and Dan is rated *2783.38*
* After the last match, Dan is rated **2783.65** and Novel is rated **2801.97**

### Method 2 \[Whole tournament\]

1. Roanin Novel

* Initial expected score = 1.096
    * Actual score = 1.5
    * Hence, new rating = **2802.04**

---

2. Rigi Hains

* Initial expected score = 0.868
    * Actual score = 0.5
    * Hence, new rating = **2741.32**

---

3. Dan H. Yvasin

* Initial expected score = 1.036
    * Actual score = 1.0
    * Hence, new rating = **2783.64**

---

### Conclusion

* In such a short tournament, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in the results of the two methods, but maybe there **could be one in a longer tournament**.
* Which of them does FIDE use?

# Answer
**Neither**

Elo-ratings are not ajusted for calculation after each game, they are not adjusted after each tournament either. They are adjusted **each month**.

For all games played during one month, each player is supposed to have his last published elo-rating. If I am 2300 on the 1st of November and we play together November the 29th, your rating will be calculated by considering that you have faced a 2300-player. Whether I have gained 50 points in a previous tournament from 5 to 12 of November, or lost 100 points from novermber 16 to 23, will only be relevant for my rating on December 1st, and for my opponents in December and thereafter.

In your example, the second method applies. But there won't be any ajustment after the tournament if one of your three players plays another tournament within the same month.
> 21 votes

---
Tags: elo, fide
---


title: Why 6...e5 in King's Indian?

text:
# Question
Title: Why 6...e5 in King's Indian?
I'm a hobbyist chess player, mostly playing online correspondence. I often play the King's Indian defense as Black, but there seems to be a key idea in the opening that I'm missing. Specifically, I don't understand why 6...e5 is so commonly played in so many variations, for example:

```
[fen ""]
[StartFlipped "1"]
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 g6
3. Nc3 Bg7
4. e4 d6
5. Nf3 O-O
6. Be2 e5

```

It seems to me that in this position by playing 6...e5 Black blocks his own fianchettoed bishop, and given that White frequently pushes d5 later on, the diagonal is unlikely to reopen up any time soon. It seems to me that something like 6...c5 would be a much more natural move, logically setting up a queenside attack with the central pawn chain supporting the dark-squared bishop on the long diagonal.

Clearly I'm missing something here, given 6...e5's popularity relative to 6...c5. So my questions are

1. **Why is 6....e5 so much more popular than 6...c5**, and
2. **What is Black supposed to do with his dark-squared bishop after 6...e5?**

# Answer
It is good to think more concretely here. After move like e5 three things can happen. White can take on e5, white can play d5 or black will one day play exd4 himself.

1. Taking on e5 never wins a pawn and creates a hole on d4. For good reason not very popular
2. With d5 your bishop is now bad, but the position for black is good, easy and funny to play. An attack with f5 f4 g5 h5 g4 Ng6 Nh4 is very dangerous. Bishop often joins the attack in later stages from h6 and is often use on f8 till its time to hold the queenside for a little longer. Also maneuver Rf8-f7-g7 us typical to protect 7th rank and attack at the same time. Find games of Nakamura how he murdered some 2700+ players just rolling on the kingside.
3. Tactics say it is not so easy for white to achieve exchange on d4 under good terms. After 7...Nc6 there are no useful moves for white and pressure against centre is already too strong. Popular d5 goes to (2) and Be3 runs to Ng4, even if it is also variation.

So there are three good scenarios for black after e5 and in comparison to some Maroczy bind or benoni structure I think they are both better and more interesting to play.

Note1: Many c5 style players play c5 already on move 2, by the way.

Note2: Calm players with no intention of attacking don't play kings indian in the first place, playing Nimzo Indian, Slav etc...

So everybody wants to play e5 and win!
> 11 votes

# Answer
After 6....e5 the centre usually gets closed with white playing d5. This closed centre helps black in his kingside attack with f5, g5, ... The dark squared bishop sometimes goes to f8 from where it helps to support the d6 pawn which can get weak if white attacks on the queenside.

The positions after c5 are completely different resembling the Sicilian dragon or Benoni to which it can transpose. Here it is white who is attacking on the kingside.

So I guess e5 is more popular because black players of the king's Indian prefer to attack the king more than defending.
> 6 votes

# Answer
E5 starts the kingside development/attack that Black wants. The reason he is doing this is because he has more pieces developed on the kingside than White. Eventually, he will move f5, and even advance his g pawn.

Yes, e5 reduces the effectiveness of the black bishop in the center and long diagonal. But that's not the point. If Black wants to be aggressive the kingside, advancing his pawns, the bishop is needed at g7 for *defense.*

E5 is what gives the *King's* Indian its character, and it is at this point that the opening becomes the King's Indian. Before it, Black had a variety of potential center and queen's side defenses such as the Gruenfeld. With e5, Black commits to playing on the king, not the queenside.
> 4 votes

# Answer
This always used to puzzle me when I was starting out. Now I think of it like this. ..e5 increases the pressure that the fianchettoed Bishop exerts on d4, and White must decide what to do about it.

1. He can exchange pawns d4xe5. As already noted this is not very ambitious and leaves Black with fewer problems than he might have had.
2. He can leave the tension as it is but to some extent that just puts the decision off. Black can also leave the tension unresolved, but eventually he usually exchanges e5xd4 and now the Bishop is fully in play.
3. He can push d5, and now the Pawn structure is such that almost inevitably White will attack on the Q-side, and Black on the K-side. True, that Bishop is now confined and might become a liability in the endgame, but Black has created an inbalance that they find congenial4

You should only play the lines with ..e5 if you are happy with all of these outcomes.
> 0 votes

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


title: Book recommendation on zugzwang

text:
# Question
Title: Book recommendation on zugzwang
I am looking for a book recommendation on endgames. More specifically, I want to know how to avoid zugzwang, and what to do in case it arises.

If you know of any book which has in-depth case study on endgames which end up in zugzwang, please give a suggestion.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't know any book that has a chapter or even a long section devoted specifically to zugzwang (of course that doesn't mean one doesn't exist) but the concept is pervasive throughout any book about endgames. I think any good endgame book would help; there are books for different levels and tastes, but just to give one example that I have handy, *Fundamental Chess Endings* by Müller and Lamprecht mentions zugzwang 283 times!

# Answer
> 3 votes
If you are in Zugzwang, by definition, there is nothing you can do, because any possible move leads to a disadvantage.

Most typically Zugzwang appears in endgames with few pieces, particularly in pawn only endgames where is is used as a very common technique. I believe that if you study pawn endgames you should encounter it very often and get very familiar with it, so that you can keep it at the back of your mind when doing calculations.

I would not focus my endgame on avoiding Zugzwang as there are usually other things to take into account as well.

---
Tags: endgame, books, zugzwang
---


title: Please critique my Engine game

text:
# Question
Title: Please critique my Engine game
Two of my engine's played against Garbo engine. (without a opening Book on my part.) Both lost :( Which played better? I need a comparative analysis. Both shared the same evaluation. frankenstein played much faster :(

```
[Site "Chessrig app"]
[White "garbo"]
[Black "frankenstein"]
[Opening "Mieses-Kotroc Variation, Center Counter"]
[Event "Simmulation"]
[Date "2017-11-13"]
[TimeControl "unlimited"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Termination "Checkmate by white in 75 moves."]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd4 4. Nf3 Qd6 5. d4 Bg4 6. h3 Bh5 7. g4 Bg6 8. Ne5 Qe6 9. Bb5+ c6 10. Bc4 Qd6 11. h4 e6 12. h5 Bxc2 13. Qxc2 Qxd4 14. Qe2 Qd6 15. Bf4 f6 16. Ng6 e5 17. Nxh8 Ne7 18. Bf7+ Kd7 19. Rd1 Nd5 20. Bxd5 exf4 21. Be4 Na6 22. Nf7 Qxd1+ 23. Qxd1+ Ke8 24. Nd6+ Kd8 25. Qb3 Bxd6 26. Qg8+ Kc7 27. Qxa8 Bb4 28. Bxh7 Nc5 29. Qxa7 f3 30. a3 Nd3+ 31. Bxd3 Bd6 32. Ba6 Kd7 33. Qxb7+ Bc7 34. Ne4 Kd8 35. Qc8+ Ke7 36. Qxc7+ Kf8 37. Qd8+ Kf7 38. Bc4# 1-0

```

game1 analysis using chess.com

```
[Site "Chessrig app"]
[White "garbo"]
[Black "prospect"]
[Opening "Mieses-Kotroc Variation, Center Counter"]
[Event "Simmulation"]
[Date "2017-11-13"]
[TimeControl "unlimited"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Termination "Checkmate by white in 59 moves."]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd4 4. Nf3 Qd6 5. d4 Bg4 6. h3 Bh5 7. g4 Bg6 8. Ne5 Qe6 9. Bb5+ c6 10. Bc4 Qd6 11. h4 e6 12. h5 Bxc2 13. Qxc2 Qxd4 14. Qe2 Qd6 15. Bf4 f6 16. Ng6 e5 17. Nxh8 Ne7 18. Bf7+ Kd7 19. Rd1 Nd5 20. Bxd5 exf4 21. Be4 Na6 22. Nf7 Qxd1+ 23. Qxd1+ Kc7 24. Qf3 Re8 25. Qxf4+ Kc8 26. Kd2 Re6 27. Bf5 Nc7 28. Re1 g5 29. Rxe6 gxf4 30. Re8# 1-0

```

game2 analysis using chess.com

# Answer
I would start by asking why your engine is making horrible tempo loss moves with the queen? 8...Qe6? in game one and 3...Qd4? in game two. You need to consider "developing with tempo" somehow.
> 5 votes

# Answer
* It was obviously a fast game, and your search depth was too **low**. Your engine liked moving the queen because it didn't see it'd be driven back a few moves later.
* You need to define better piece square values table. If you do it properly, the engine should aim to control the center with a pawn or a piece, but not moving the queen out.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines, analysis, programming
---


# Question
Title: How or what to practice when mentally exhausted?
You had a long day and your batteries are drained. You would like to improve your chess though. How to do this in an appropriate or maybe even restorative way? Should you practice at all or do something else instead?

I found myself blundering away in games or tactical puzzles and moved away from it to look for better ways. How or what do you guys practice if your mentally exhausted?

Edit: Thank you for your answers!

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yoga.

Failing that watch your favourite TV programme.

# Answer
> 3 votes
When you are tired but want to study it is probably a good time to watch chess videos. You don't have to be sharp to absorb someone explaining some positional ideas, or get some exposure to theory.
Also, playing through recent GM games just to flag ones you want to look at when you are not tired can be a helpful way of keeping up on things.

---
Tags: training, psychology, best-practice
---


# Question
Title: How to checkmate in an altered version of chess
If you know the name of the chess variant I'm trying to describe, please leave it in an answer.

My friend and I have conceived an (most likely already thought up, nevertheless very fun) idea of chess where 2 moves take place at a time. The main rule we have that concerns checkmating in this variant is that you can move through check so long as you don't end up in check at the end of the second move. (This also means you can move another piece before getting your king out of check)

How would one checkmate in this situation? An even situation would be optimal for the response, I know how one could checkmate with an inordinate amount of pieces.

# Answer
This is basically Marseillais Chess, the main difference between it and your version is that a player can't move into and then out of, check. When a player gives check on the first move, he then loses his second move.

Additionally, the most commonly played version is "balanced", with white only making one move on the first turn, so as to not give White too much of an advantage.

One would checkmate just as in regular chess.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, chess-variants
---