# Question
Title: Does this chess variant exist, and has it ever been considered for official tournaments?
Inspired by this question: Why did Magnus Carlsen not play the World Chess Championship in 2023?

It's not the first time I've heard about GMs (not just Magnus Carlsen) being tired of the current state of Classical chess and how it's too reliant on preparing a lot of opening variations.
So I wonder... Is there a chess mode that just *skips* the opening?

**Get a top chess engine, make it play a game and stop at some legal position in the mid-game where White has a slight +0.1 / +0.2 advantage** (just like the one that exists at the start of a normal game).

**Then have players play from there.**

Same rules, same everything, only difference being someone else already played the opening phase for them. They could be given some minutes to study the position, or none at all; the system could be tuned to make the position as uncommon / unplayed / off-the-book as deemed convenient.

I think it could work as an alternative to rapid for tie-breaks. See how they perform when thrown into a position they haven't planned themselves, how quickly they can adapt to the material and position they got.

**Is this an actual chess mode? Has something like this ever been considered for official games?**

N.B. I could understand if someone thought "this is just a chess puzzle", but it isn't. A chess puzzle always has some kind of achievable goal: a mate in two, a short sequence of movements gaining a piece or a positional advantage. There's always a "win" to be found. In other words, it's not a +0.1 position, but more like a +5.4 position where you have to find the movement(s) to consolidate that advantage. A (modern) chess engine would never evaluate a puzzle position to be just +0.1, because then it wouldn't be a puzzle, just a normal position.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Before the variant you propose can be considered for something even remotely like 'official' tournaments, it must have been proved in practice: particularly the selection of starting positions. Until then, it's nothing.

A major issue would of course be if the process of selecting starting position really would provide 'random' starting position, or just a very large number of predictable (and thus pre-analyzeable) positions. Until that has been researched, I see no reason why anyone would touch it, especially 'officially'. You probably will have to do that research yourself, unless you find anyone interested.

You can probably research the original question yourself: See The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants (2007, perhaps later?) However, it omits almost everything that doesn't really contain enough to make it into a variation: and your suggestion may be one of those

There have been remotely similar proposals. In one from early 1908, kings were placed on an empty board, a screen was placed between White and Black, and the players placed their remaining men on 'their' side of the board (with some obvious restrictions). When they are finished, the screen is removed and, play starts. (I saw this mentioned in Wiener Schachzeitung -- I probably don't recall all details) I believe a minor tournament was played using this method. (I have a game between Marco and Thirring from 1908-12-28, almost certainaly from WSz. The starting position that developed in that game was

```
[FEN "3q1r2/bp1pnrpk/p1b1pnpp/7p/2P2PP1/1PB1PPNR/2B1PKPR/3N3Q w - - 0 1"]

```

Marco had the White pieces, and won the game.

In another type of variant, the screen is dispensed with, and the players place their pieces almost as moves (with some obvious restrictions). Checks have to be countered immediately. This one appear in 1915 or so in Wiener Schachzeitung, but I can't recall seeing any scores.

Also, in theme tournaments, all games share the same starting position (or positions). The intention here is to investigate the viability of a particular opening, and not necessarily to provide an even starting position. I have the impression that these are or were more common in corr. chess world. (Example: Abbazia/Opatija 1912, King's Gambit Accepted. )

# Answer
> 1 votes
> Get a top chess engine, make it play a game and stop at some legal position in the mid-game where White has a slight +0.1 / +0.2 advantage (just like the one that exists at the start of a normal game).
>
> Then have players play from there.

There is a common variant which is quite close to that and which occasionally has tournaments. These tournaments are called "Themed Tournaments". Rather than have the engine make some semi random moves to determine the starting position a position arising from a standard opening is used. For instance these could range from the queenless position arising from a full Berlin Defence to a Kings Indian Defence to a Fried Liver Attack.

All games in the tournament start from the same standard position and players have the chance to play both the white and black sides of the opening in the course of the tournament. Lichess run these tournaments online and possibly other platforms as well.

These tournaments, arising as they do from standard positions in known openings are uncontroversial and well defined. What you suggest is rather less well defined and begs a lot of questions like - which engines should be used?, how many moves into the middlegame should the starting position be?, what opening book should the engine use (if any)? In short it would require a lot more work to make it into an attractive alternative to the already existing themed tournaments.

> Is this an actual chess mode? Has something like this ever been considered for official games?

No. The idea needs more work and proof of concept (some actual competitive games or tournaments)

---
Tags: opening, chess-variants, middlegame, preparation
---


# Question
Title: What happened actually in the game Kreschmer - Laue, Aisenach 1951?
```
[Title "Kretschmar vs. Laue, 1951"]
[fen "7k/3R2pq/pb3N2/1p4Qp/5p2/1PP2P1P/1P4PK/4r3 w - - 0 1"]

```

In a German book, Spass am Kombinieren (*Joy of Combination*) by Albin Pötzsch, it is claimed that White played h4 and lost to Rh1 with mate to follow. It was also mentioned that Qc5!! would have won. Other sources claim that White played Qc5 !! I wonder what was actually played.

The whole game would be nice. Who knows a reference?

# Answer
The only reference I can find is from Chess.com - India. They claim that Kretschmar found the win. On Facebook, Instagram and Twitter they posted the position with this question:

> In this chaotic position, White crafted a perfect end with a thrilling move. Can you find the end?

So, they are saying that White found Qc5! but they don't give the full game.

The best response they got was on Twitter. Here is some analysis:

```
[Title "Kretschmar vs. Laue, 1951"]
[fen "7k/3R2pq/pb3N2/1p4Qp/5p2/1PP2P1P/1P4PK/4r3 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qc5! {Stops perpetual and wins massive material or checkmate} Bxc5 (1...gxf6 2. Qf8+ Qg8 3. Qxf6+ Qg7 4. Qxg7#) (1... Re8 2. Rxg7 Qg6 (2...Kxg7 3. Nxe8+ Kf7 4. Nd6+ Kg8 5. Qxb6) 3. Rxg6 Bxc5 4. Nxe8 Kh7 5. Rxa6) 2. Rd8+ Re8 3. Rxe8+ Bf8 4. Rxf8+ Qg8 5. Rxg8#

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: history, middlegame, famous-games
---


# Question
Title: Vienna Game: Struggling to find a good response to 2...Nc6
I am starting to pick up the Vienna Game but I'm struggling to find a satisfactory response to 2...Nc6, the Max Lange Defense. The main moves according to theory here are 3. Nf3, 3. Bc4, 3. f4, 3. g3.

* 3. Nf3 just transposes into Four Knights territory, and I do **not** want to play the Four Knights because it just looks really symmetric and boring to me.
* 3. Bc4 is what I *want* to make work, but it seems to me like Black can equalize too easily if they know a move or two. After 3...Nf6 4. d3 Na5! you lose the bishop pair, and according to Lichess this doesn't have a great winrate for White. Any move other than 4. d3 results in 4...Nxe4 5. Nxe4 d5!
* 3. f4 is essentially a delayed King's Gambit due to the lack of a knight on f6, so it seems kind of risky to me.
* I'm not familiar with the positional ideas behind 3. g3. As a beginner, I guess I'm looking for something more aggressive (but sound)?

# Answer
> 9 votes
I picked up the Vienna Gambit a year ago and ran into the same quandary over 2. ... Nc6, I generally agree with your assessment of each candidate move, and I don't see that you have much real choice apart from those four. Taking into account that your preferred line is the Vienna Gambit, and that you'd like to be able to deal with alternatives to 2. ... Nf6 in a similar spirit:

* 3. Nf3 definitely isn't what you want! If you were comfortable/happy with 3. Nf3, you'd play 2. Nf3 instead of the Vienna.
* 3. Bc4 is a pity. Before switching to the Vienna Gambit, I was originally drawn to the 3. Bc4 Vienna because of the fairly reliable prospect of getting 5. f4 without gambitting the pawn, but indeed, Black can and should spoil your fun by trading off your bishop with Na5 as soon as you've played d3. The resulting position is playable, but as with the Four Knights, generally not much fun for the sort of player who'd opt for the Vienna to begin with. In practice, a lot of players unfamiliar with the Vienna will instead give you 3. ... Bc5 4. Qg4!, so this could be a workable choice in club-level blitz, but "hope chess" should never be the basis of a repertoire decision.
* 3. g3 is a much slower and less forceful way to achieve f2-f4 and results in positions of a very different character from developing the Bf1 to c4 or b5. Once again, playable, but not in the spirit of the Vienna Gambit.

My recommendation is to take a closer look at 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4. Granted that it's a transposition to the King's Gambit where Black can take the pawn freely without fear of 4. e5 ideas found in the Vienna Gambit, but I think you'll find that the character is about as close as you're going to get to the Vienna Gambit without risking the boring Na5 lines of 3. Bc4, and in chess we don't have the luxury of always getting exactly the flavor of game we'd like. If your concern is that it's riskier than you prefer, consider the following:

* Going back to the Vienna Gambit proper, remember that Black can accept the gambit and walk into 4. e5. It's a bad decision, but it's not an instant loss, it's hardly risk-free for White, and it will require some technique from you to fully take advantage of Black's misstep. By playing the Vienna Gambit, you sign on to occasionally play the crazy King's Gambit-ish positions that result from Black accepting the gambit. In this sense the 2. ... Nc6 3. f4 lines are similar in character to the Vienna Gambit.
* With Nc3 and Nc6 having been played, a quick d7-d5 is ruled out. You're playing a King's Gambit where Black doesn't have access to the Falkbeer Countergambit 2. ... d5 or the Abbazia Defense 2. ... exf4 3. Nf3 d5. Black has fewer credible replies, and can't really decline the gambit except in ways that permit you to keep your pawn on f4 and transpose into 3. Bc4 Vienna lines where Black hasn't played Na5, which should be pleasant enough for a Vienna Gambit player.
* If Black does accept the gambit, presumably you're going to respond 4. Nf3; if you're happy with Vienna Gambit levels of risk but not King's Gambit levels of risk, then allowing 4. ... Qh5+ and having to move your king is probably not your cup of tea. So now we're looking at the 3. Nf3 King's Gambit proper, except the presence of Nc3 and Nc6 limits Black's options and slightly modifies the character of the remaining choices, a small plus to the Vienna player in terms of familiarity that should decrease the risk. You're also one move closer to being able to castle long, generally desirable both for safety and for achieving positions closer to what you would have gotten out of the Vienna Gambit main lines from 3. ... d5 4. fxe5 Nxe4. In many cases you have a decent prospect to fight for d2-d4 and Bxf4.

There are two main issues for you to consider in the lines after 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. Nf3. If you can reconcile these with your tastes and aptitudes, then I think 3. f4 should be absolutely fine for you.

* Just as in the King's Gambit, even if you opt for Nf3, Black may play Be7 and uncommon Bh4+ ideas that will require you to either move your king or (if you played Bc4 in advance) castle short in a tricky position where you have neither f nor g pawns and Black is bearing down on you. The database stats are encouraging either way, but you will need to know what you're doing and you will need to be comfortable playing in some really madcap positions.
* Nc3 and Nc6 aren't solely an improvement for White; the presence of Nc6 means that if Black holds the f4 pawn with 4. ... g5 (by far the most popular choice), and then pushes 5. ... g4 (popular if you play 5. d4 or 5. Bc4, all but guaranteed if you play 5. h4), now you can't simply play Ne5 and preserve some degree of sanity. With Black's Nc6 preventing you from escaping to e5, you basically need to be prepared to sack the knight, whether that's 5. d4 g4 6. Bc4 gxf3 (or Bc4 first and then d4) in the style of the Muzio Gambit, or 5. h4 g4 6. Ng5 h6 7. Nxf7. Just about the only alternative to sacking the knight (aside from retreating it...) is 4. ... g5 5. d4 g4 6. Ne5 Nxe5 7. dxe5 Qh4+, which to me looks considerably weaker. Good news, both knight sacks are playable if you know what you're doing. Bad news, most likely neither of them is perfectly to your taste if you opted for the Vienna Gambit over the King's Gambit. EDIT: A major alternative to sacking the knight in the 4. ... g5 lines: 5. g3, establishing a refuge for the knight on h4 and pretty likely transposing to the Quaade Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3) with good play from both sides. The transposition is rarely played, but I can't see a single thing wrong with it.

In the end, no opening is going to give us exactly what we want 100% of the time. 1. e4 players get to pick their poison between the Ruy (the Berlin stifles the greatest attacking players), the Italian (3. ... Bc5 can be a slog, unless you like the Evans Gambit), the Scotch (3. ... Bc5 again...), various gambits of the d4 pawn, the King's Gambit with Black's numerous strong retorts and White's razor-thin margin for error, and the Vienna with the potential drawbacks you've noted in each major variation. The other possible first moves for White all have their own equivalent issues. Take your pick, either based on which troublesome lines you're most likely to meet, or based on which troublesome lines you would most prefer to never meet. I've tried most everything listed here and found that my personal preference is the Vienna Gambit, with 3. f4 in the case of 2. ... Nc6, and while it's certainly not a choice without drawbacks, you don't have any choices that are wholly without drawbacks. My advice is to examine the 2. ... Nc6 3. f4 lines a little more closely and decide whether the most thematically problematic line (1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. Nf3 g5) is preferable to your grievances with the alternative third moves.

Personally I've found that if I look hard enough, most any opening has at least one line against it that's both strong and not to my liking thematically. I've grown to enjoy chess more by spending less time dwelling on those possibilities, and more time thinking about the lines where I do still have control over whether the game goes in a direction I like. Can you guess how many times I saw the nasty Na5 lines before I abandoned the 3. Bc4 Vienna? Zero. I quit playing that line because I was afraid someone *might* play it. That's no way to live. Play the way you want to play, and make revisions later if it doesn't work out, but do play something, and let the practical results guide you rather than phantom critical lines.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You can go for 3. Nf3 and when it does end up with a four knights game, sacrifice a knight via Nxe5 to get into the Halloween gambit. I can guarantee you that that *won't* be boring.

---
Tags: vienna-game
---


title: Transposition Table eviction policy

text:
# Question
Title: Transposition Table eviction policy
What do most engines use as an eviction policy for their transposition tables? I have read plenty about replacement strategies for collisions or overflow, but not as much about actively reducing table size.

My engine stores the number of irreversible moves made so far, namely pawn moves, captures, and castles, and purges all entries from the table that have fewer, meaning they can no longer be reached from the current board state. Even in positions where there are no pawn pushes or captures for an extended period, the chance of hits goes up significantly so the table always hovers around the same size, depending on depth.

The memory footprint is drastically reduced and performance impact is negligible. Collisions go from rare to effectively non-existant. Am I overcomplicating it and the benefits are not worth the added complexity? I'm curious to know if any other engines implement this technique or what eviction strategy they use, if any.

# Answer
You're over-complicating it to the extent it doesn't make sense. You don't change the size of used RAM by "clearing" an entry. Clearing an entry means zeroing or changing the value to something meaningless, not un-allocating RAM. I suggest reading how arrays work as your first step to understanding transposition tables.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I do believe I have come up with an ugly but (hopefully) complete solution to your problem though. What you have to do is keep track of the first irreversible move in every line that happens in search and propagate it downwards to all descendent nodes (as an argument in search or through some global variable), then store that in the TT for those descendent nodes, on top of storing the number of irreversible moves.

When you clear the TT of all the irrelevant positions, you can clear out all of the positions that don't have both the same number of irreversible moves and the same specific irreversible move made.

ONE MINUTE LATER...

After thinking, I just realized that this alone will allow still-valid positions to be removed; after one irreversible move is made, once another is played the stored move in your TT will be the old one instead of the current one and won't match up. This means you'll actually have to store *all* the irreversible moves in the TT from the ancestor line for every position then pop them off the stack at every iteration (unmanageable for higher depths), or somehow update the move in TT entries during future searches where the position is encountered again.

Of those two options, the first is more viable but I feel that this entire idea may not be worth enough in performance to justify actually further muddying up your code.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, programming, computer-chess, transpositions
---


title: Next-best-move engine

text:
# Question
Title: Next-best-move engine
Of course a real playing-the-next-best-move engine is silly, it fouls up at the first trade. (Also, sometimes only one legal move is possible.) Thus, my idea: It sets a cutoff instead and plays the best moves with values \< v. (This could also work for a neural net engine, since it has a winning expectancy which could be used).

Has this been tried for fun? With different values of v? (This could be interesting: at which v the position will get worse ultimately? -1 PU?)

Comparable but not exactly the same.

# Answer
There's a "temperature" setting for Leela that does this. See the description on the Lc0 website.

> Temperature: Tau value from softmax formula for the first move. If equal to 0, the engine picks the best move to make. Larger values increase randomness while making the move. Default value: 0.00 Minimum value: 0.00 Maximum value: 100.00
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Returning to Chess Tournaments: Does My Old FIDE Rating Still Apply?
Years ago, I was an active chess player with a rating of 1450. I plan to return to the scene by participating in an official tournament.

My question is, will my previous rating be retained or reset due to my prolonged absence?

# Answer
> 8 votes
> My question is, will my previous rating be retained or reset due to my prolonged absence?

6 years is not that long for FIDE. They still have their rating records for you and when you resume it will be with a standard rating of 1450 and rapid rating of 1442 unless they apply the anti-deflation adjustments they were talking about a few months ago. In that case just over 200 rating points would be added to your ratings.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I took a break for 24 years, with a 1390 score. They actually increased my score, to make up for the non official training time I took when I was away in Japan with one of the more unknown Grandmasters.

---
Tags: fide, rating, tournament
---


# Question
Title: After 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3, what are the differences between 2...e6 and 2...Nf6?
Black plays 2...e6 8% of the time, 2...Nf6 77% of time.

It seems that by playing 2...Nf6, Black keeps open the option of playing ...Bg4 and ...Bf5 (which would be the Slav if White plays c4 and Black answers with ...c6).

As Black against everything other than 1.e4, I always play ...d5, ...e6, ...Nf6, ...Be7, in some order. I never play ...c6, ...Bg4, ...Bf5. So I think that I should play 2...e6, but I'm not really sure, and I have no idea what could be the advantage(s) of 2...e6 over 2...Nf6.

.

Edit: After continuing to ponder about it, I now realize that by playing 2...e6, Black keeps open the option of playing the Triangle (3...c6) and the Dutch Stonewall (...f5). But, if I'm not mistaken, after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6, the Triangle is less good against 3.Nf3 than against 3.Nc3, because:

* In the Semi-Slav, when White hasn't yet played Nc3, White has some good extra options: 4.Qc2, 4.Nbd2, 4.e3 and then delaying Nc3 or never playing Nc3 at all and instead playing Nbd2.
* Semi-Slav players who play the Semi-Slav through the Triangle move-order do so to avoid the Exchange Slav and the Exchange QGD, but here the Exchange Slav can't happen, and the Exchange QGD is toothless when White plays an early Nf3 because Black will be able to play ...Bf5 and White won't be able to play the Nge2 f3 e4 manoeuvre.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You may be over-thinking this. I doubt that either move can be argued as being "better" than the other. So far, both players are playing good moves and keeping their options open. Each is hoping either to transpose into some preferred main line or some pet system, At the same time, if they know something about their opponent, they hope to exclude the opponents preferences. The differences in frequency that you observe have to do with players losing options that are important to them personally. What suits player A may not suit Player B. They may both be strong players.

If you play 2..e6, then you have lost the option of fianchetto defences, and also lost the option of posting your QB outside any pawn chain that arises. If you play 2..Nf6, the only important loss I can think of is the Stonewall, but that is a minority taste, so most people lose fewer options by playing that. This does not apply if you ALWAYS play ..e6, and if you do, you may as well play it now.

---
Tags: opening, theory, queens-gambit, queens-gambit-declined, transpositions
---


# Question
Title: Why is futility pruning causing an Elo drop in my engine?
I'm getting weird results when introducing futility pruning into Blunder. On the one hand, I'm getting a pretty sizeable reduction in nodes, and I'm searching a full ply deeper for some positions (e.g. kiwipete), but I'm getting no, or negative Elo gain when I'm testing.

Now, I understand this is because I'm likely pruning too many good lines, so the Elo gain from the increased search depth is being offset by missing winning tactical lines. Where I'm stuck is figuring out what I'm missing (or including) in my futility pruning code that's causing this "over-pruning". Over the past week or so, I've done quite a bit of research and have tried many different configurations and ideas, and none of them seem to be working for me.

I've also taken a look at the code of other engines, and it doesn't seem like I'm doing anything weird. Here are the relevant parts of my search code:

```
// The primary negamax function, which only returns a score and no best move.
func (search *Search) negamax(depth, ply uint8, alpha, beta int16, doNull bool) int16 {
        ...

    //  Check if futility pruning can be done.
    canFutilityPrune := false
    futilityMargin := int16(200 * depth)
    if depth <= 4 &&
        !inCheck &&
        alpha < Checkmate {
        canFutilityPrune = staticScore+futilityMargin <= alpha
    }

    ...

    // Set a flag to record if any pruning was done. If pruning was done, then
    // we can't declare a mate, since we didn't test every move.
    noPruning := true

    for index := 0; index < int(moves.Count); index++ {

                ...

        givesCheck := sqIsAttacked(
            &search.Pos,
            search.Pos.SideToMove,
            search.Pos.PieceBB[search.Pos.SideToMove][King].Msb())

        tactical := givesCheck || move.MoveType() == Attack || move.MoveType() == Promotion
        important := move.Equal(hashMove)

        if canFutilityPrune && legalMoves > 0 && !tactical && !important {
            search.Pos.UnmakeMove(move)
            noPruning = false
            continue
        }

        ...
    }

    // If we don't have any legal moves, and we haven't pruned moves, it's either checkmate, or a stalemate.
    if legalMoves == 0 && noPruning {
        if inCheck {
            // If its checkmate, return a checkmate score of negative infinity,
            // with the current ply added to it. That way, the engine will be
            // rewarded for finding mate quicker, or avoiding mate longer.
            return -Inf + int16(ply)
        } else {
            // If it's a draw, return the draw value.
            return search.contempt()
        }
    }

    // Return the best score, which is alpha.
    return alpha
}

```

As I mentioned, I've fiddled in various ways with tuning the futility margin, what counts as a "tactical" move, and what counts as an "important" move. And nothing I've tried so far so shows any positive gain.

I've also tried a debugging idea I saw, where at pre-horizon nodes (depth=1) if a move was pruned, I perform a normal full-search and make sure that the move failed-low and my futility margin was high enough and my pruning seemed to pass this test, so I must admit, at this point, I'm pretty stumped. Any ideas as to where I'm going wrong with my pruning would be appreciated.

# Answer
> 1 votes
As I see if you don't do any depth checking. Also if I am reading your code correctly, you do not check to see if the move is a capture. I could be wrong as you might already be checking this. But, according to chessprogramming wiki, you should not do futility pruning when the side to move is in check. Which I see you only check if a move gives check. I have a four player chess teams engine, heres how I do futility pruning.

```
if (moveIsPrunable && curTeamIsNotInCheck && lmrDepth <= 8 && evalScore <= alpha - 125 - 90 * lmrDepth) {
    continue;
}

```

I hope this helps, If you have any problems feel free to reply to this post.

---
Tags: engines, software, programming, computer-chess, minimax
---


title: A question about the Najdorf sicilian

text:
# Question
Title: A question about the Najdorf sicilian
I've started to learn the Najdorf and a two-part questions:

1. people mostly emphasise central control with sicilian defence, is this true for najdorf as well or are we more focused on attacking opponent's kingside?
2. does najdorf mostly lead to endgames? If so, which pieces are most common? Eg: rook and pawn, knight and bishop

# Answer
Najdorf is very focused on central control - like in most others sicilians your long term strategical goal is achieving e5 and d5, with subsuquent exchange of your d-pawn for white e-pawn. In this ideal scenario you keep one pawn in the centre (e5), while white has no pawns in the centre.

How white prevents this ideal scenario for you depends on concrete variation.

But lets start at the beginning. Entire point of 5. ... a6 is that 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5? fails due to 6. Bb5+. So 5. ... a6 prevents Bb5, thus preparing e5. Now white has multiple choices.

If white plays 6. Bg5 or 6. Bc4 he prevents e5 (first due to weakness of d5 - imagine if white was able to make the pin worse via Nd5!; second due to weakness of f7), so black has to concede and play 6. ... e6. His longterm idea is the same - when safe he will still play e5 and d5 in some order.

For practically all other white moves black has a choice between 6. ... e5 and transposing to Scheveningen with 6. ... e6. In the first case play revolves around d5 square - the main strategical question is: will white attain control of d5, preventing black central break d6-d5 and place a piece on this strong central outpost; or will black control d5, break with d6-d5 and attain central superiority? Attacking and counterattacking chances are centered on this question. White's kingside attack is unlikely to succed without sufficient control of d5 - vice versa, with sufficient control it's very dangerous.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, najdorf
---


# Question
Title: Is there any engine that is capable of evaluating the worth of a single piece in a given position?
The value of any piece is dynamic and depends on many factors in the position.

Engines can evaluate the position as a whole with great precision.

They are also capable of "understanding" that two minor pieces have different values and thus refuse to trade them, or even view a minor piece as superior to a rook.

But is there any chess engine that can assign a value to a piece?

I have found that Stockfish attempts to deliver this value, but it is based on removing the piece from the board and comparing the position. However this approach seems rather drastic and I doubt the accuracy of evaluations based on it (I may be totally wrong and it is the best there currently is).

# Answer
> 1 votes
> Engines can evaluate the position as a whole with great precision.

This is not the case; the only thing an engine evaluates is *that engine's evaluation function*. Imagine a chess engine FishStock, whose evaluation is always that of StockFish cubed - e.g., if SF evaluates a position as -3, then FS's evaluation will be -27. These two engines will have the same playing strength, as they will have the same top move in any given position. Hence, there's no reason whatsoever to say that one evaluation function is "better" or "more precise" than the other.

What matters is a *ranking* of all chess positions/moves (from "best" to "worst") induced by engine evaluation function, and how well it approximates the ranking based on the mathematical values "win for white in N moves", "draw", or "win for black in M moves".

The only reason we are talking about the values of individual pieces is that linear evaluation functions, like 1xWP+3xWN+...+9xWQ-1xBP-...-9xBQ, are the simplest for our brain (and the computer) to handle. So, the "value of a piece" is merely an artifact of our way of thinking about the position. As soon as your thinking is more sophisticated than just a linear function, the notion of a value of a piece loses its meaning.

Note that mathematically, removing a piece usually just turns a drawn position to a losing one. You may calculate a drop in the evaluation function by a given engine, but as explained above, that's an arbitrary number that only has to do with the design of that particular engine rather than anything objective about the position.

---
Tags: engines, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: Is there a name for this common type of blunder?
I'm sure most of us have done it at least once ... I had a position where one of my pieces were under direct threat - I was a pawn up, but my opponent attacked my rook with his bishop and threatened to get the pawn back if I was careless. I tried to calculate every possible continuation and got lost in the possibilities ... and before I knew it, I was totally absorbed by the position 4 or 5 moves ahead and completely forgot that my rook was hanging. Keeping a mental eye on the future position instead of the position in front of me, I made a silly move (moved my knight, if I recall) and lost my rook.

Naturally, and quite embarrassingly, my teammates all wanted to know what happened since it looked so good for me at one point. Instead of trying to explain the intricacies of the position, it would be convenient if I could tell my club mates that I lost because of an "X-blunder". Does this type of blunder have a name?

# Answer
It is probably a bit more general than what you describe, but one move blunders are often called (a case of) "chess blindness".

I'm not a hundred percent sure, what exactly happened in you're case but often people make the second move of a combination (or variation) first, because they are ahead of the actual position. But I don't know a succinct term for that.

If you listen to top players post game interviews, what you hear incredibly often is "I just forgot about move xy". I guess if that description is good enough for Aronian and Co, it is good enough for us. ;-)

Another loosely connected term is "residual image". This describes the case when you are calculating and pieces that already moved, are still on their original square in your mind.
> 12 votes

# Answer
Alexander Kotov, in his book Think Like a Grandmaster, described this sort of a blunder as a blind spot.
> 4 votes

# Answer
It's a form of cognitive dissonance. In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

The fact that so much of chess is in the mind where pieces are moved about without any actual physical changes on the board, it's easy, especially after a period of time when fatigue becomes a factor, to lose track of what's on the board.

At some point we ALL see things that aren't there and miss things that are.

And that's why playing even a relatively mediocre chess engine is so frustrating. Every move is a fresh position for a Silicon chip or two.
> 3 votes

# Answer
It does not have a name as far as I have ever read.

That said, what you are describing is not that rare. You are calculating, and the first move is obvious, so you start really calculating at the second move, and when you are done with your calculations, you play the second move, a blunder, first.

I have read about that many times over 40 years, and I have done it myself an an occasion or two.

All you can do is before you execute your move, slow down, and take one last momentary fresh look at the board.
> 1 votes

# Answer
There really should be a name for this sort of blunder as it is very common. It's basically a case of "Forest for Trees", but perhaps another analogy would be the football receiver that momentarily takes their eyes off the ball they're going to catch. Since German seems to be the language for such terms I propose "Einfachfehler" (or "Einfacherfehler") which would mean "failure to miss something simple".
> 1 votes

---
Tags: blunder
---


title: About the importance of a "check"

text:
# Question
Title: About the importance of a "check"
Watching chess online on Youtube (Eric Hansen, Daniel Naroditsky, Kevin Bordi ...) playing blitz I noticed that they often try at first to avoid a "check" even if the potential following moves do not seem to show any dangerous threat (and, of course, they don't have a check or an obvious winning move themselves).

Obviously a "check" induces a forced move, and this is indeed uncomfortable, but it seems that the higher rated players tend to top-prioritize a check, maybe overlooking another move that might ensure some gain (and a 3-0/1 blitz game does not allow for a deep calculation).

Is it mostly by reflex? Avoiding a check - first - would appease the mind in a blitz game?

(*Sorry, don't have a game to show right now*)

# Answer
> 1 votes
> it seems that the higher rated players tend to top-prioritize a check, maybe overlooking another move that might ensure some gain

Quite the contrary; there's a chess saying (attributed to Fischer) "*Patzer sees check, gives check*." Meaning that the stronger the player, the more they rely on the actual strength of a move than it being a check.

Note that e.g. Naroditsky is one of the best online blitz players in the world. If a player of that caliber avoids a check when you don't see a reason for that, it would typically be because they see deeper than you (and deeper than they have time to comment on), not for some psychological reasons.

Blitz is largely about an ability to quickly find a useful, improving move, and it is a fact that a move eschewing a check is quite often such a move. Even if you don't see the check as dangerous, it might be that it is, actually, dangerous, and a strong player sees it, or it may *become dangerous a few moves form now*. This has pragmatic component in blitz - if you play a prophylactic move, you don't need to calculate the check on every move - but also it may have an objective value, in that you will have some moves available that would be otherwise refuted by the check.

If it feels to you that strong players avoid checks more often than necessary, it might indicate that *you* systematically underestimate the dangers of checks and the value of prophylactics, and working to revise that bias would improve your game.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Good question!

It is generally good to avoid checks. While the following moves after a check may not affect the player on a small scale; checks generally help the attacking player. Even if the ensuing moves won't cause problems for the attacked player, checks are avoided by principal due to the following reasons:

## The check helps enemy development

The attacking piece is devolved while attacking the enemy king, this forces the enemy player to lose tempo and momentum. Due to the fact that the enemy player must block the check or move out of check. This concept is extremely important in the opening, as the goal is to get your pieces out as fast as possible. If the flow of development is interrupted by a check, the attacking player will be two moves up on the enemy player

## Checks win momentum and tempo

One of the critical parts of chess is having the momentum. When an enemy king is checked it starts to develop a momentum and build a tempo of attack

The concept of momentum is simple, if you are replying to an attack, then you don't have the momentum, the enemy does. However, if you attack, and your opponent has to reply, than you have the momentum, and are one move up on your opponent

## Side affects

Pieces blocking check are pinned and can be pressured later in the game, also if the checked king ever has to move out of check before castling it will no longer be able to castle putting the attacked king at a major disadvantage

## Saving time

In blitz and bullet, the key reason for avoiding checks is the amount of time it takes to analyze whether or not a check will lead to a major attack takes to much time. So the check is blocked

Better safe than sorry!

I hope this helps!

---
Tags: grandmaster, check, blitz, online
---


# Question
Title: Use rating difference as the match criterion for pgn-extract
Is it possible to use the rating **difference** between the players as a match criterium for pgn-extract?

If not, then this looks to me like a nice new feature.

# Answer
It isn't currently, but - as the author of pgn-extract - I am always happy to entertain ideas for new features if you wish to contact me about them.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I had contact with David. He has implemented the feature and I have tested it succesfully. It will be in the next release!
> 0 votes

---
Tags: pgn-extract
---


# Question
Title: How to Correct Incorrect Birth Year in My FIDE Profile?
I recently discovered that my FIDE (International Chess Federation) profile lists an incorrect birth year. My actual rating from years ago was 1450, but the birth year on the site is wrong.

Here's my profile: FIDE Profile.

Could anyone guide me on correcting this error on the FIDE website? Are there specific steps or contacts at FIDE that I should follow to update my personal information?

# Answer
You can contact them on email, here are their contacts: https://fide.com/contacts
> 2 votes

---
Tags: fide, rating, tournament
---


# Question
Title: How Did Alireza Firouzja Qualify Over Wesley So for the 2024 Candidates Tournament?
I've been following the recent developments in the chess world and noticed that Alireza Firouzja qualified for the 2024 Candidates Tournament, overtaking Wesley So in the process.

Can someone explain the sequence of events and strategic decisions that led to this outcome?

Specifically, how did Firouzja's tournament choices impact his qualification over So?

# Answer
> 3 votes
This is described in some detail on Wikipedia. The brief version is that Firouzja played some matches against rather-inactive, arguably-overrated GMs in a bid to gain elo. FIDE intervened and ruled that the matches were not to be rated. Firouzja was really keen to play in the Candidates however, and he chose to play in a small Swiss tournament instead of the World Rapid and Blitz championships. He won all seven of his games, gaining enough rating to qualify.

> The highest rated player in the January 2024 rating list who has not yet qualified for the Candidates or World Championship, and has participated in at least four FIDE Circuit classical events, qualified for the Candidates.
>
> The rating qualifier turned out to be hotly contested. After a poor showing in the 2023 Sinquefield Cup, rating spot front-runner Alireza Firouzja lost nearly thirteen rating points, putting him behind Wesley So in the live ratings. In an attempt to surpass So, the Chartres Chess Club organized three two-game matches between Firouzja and grandmasters Alexandre Dgebuadze (52 years old, rated 2439), Andrei Shchekachev (51 years old, rated 2506), and Sergey Fedorchuk (42 years old, rated 2546). These matches, held in Chartres, France, were collectively referred to as "Alireza Firouzja's Race to Candidates". Firouzja needed to win all six games (or win the first five and not play the sixth) to overtake So in the live ratings. He indeed won the first five games after some controversy (such as Shchekachev resigning in a position that turned out to be equal in game 3), but decided to play the sixth game anyway. In what was effectively a must-win game, Firouzja overpushed and landed in a terrible endgame, but with both players in time trouble, Fedorchuk accepted Firouzja's draw offer. The 5.5/6 result still left Firouzja behind So in the live rating list.
>
> The last-minute nature of the event as well as the hand-selecting of opponents drew criticism, including from So, who revealed he turned down similar opportunities because he disagreed with the morality of such events. Shortly after these matches were announced, FIDE affirmed that it had the right to not rate any specific event, and the United States Chess Federation called on FIDE to not rate Firouzja's games. FIDE's response drew criticism from many, including Ian Nepomniachtchi, who pointed out that Ding Liren had also played last-minute games to qualify for the Candidates Tournament 2022, to no reaction from FIDE.
>
> On December 25, FIDE announced new rules, effective immediately, requiring events with at least one player rated over 2700 (or at least one woman player rated over 2500) to be registered at least one month in advance; however, the rule would not be applied retroactively for Alireza Firouzja's Race to Candidates tournament. Such requirement could be waived with the approval of the FIDE president or QC Chairman. That same day, Alireza Firouzja's matches (as well as another match in Chartres in which Firouzja did not play) were removed from FIDE's website.
>
> Having fallen short, Firouzja withdrew from the World Rapid and Blitz championship to participate in the Open de Rouen tournament, which was a minor Swiss tournament with a top prize of €700, a relatively paltry sum for a super-GM. Firouzja won all 7 games, including a win against former world championship challenger Gata Kamsky. This gained Firouzja enough rating to surpass So on the January 2024 rating list, regardless of whether the event in Chartres is rated. Firouzja was officially confirmed as the rating qualifier in the January ratings list.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The qualification for candidates by the highest unqualified player ranking is decided by the January rating list, FIDE published The January Rating List Article . His match, which was created to get Alireza Firouzja in the candidats was disqualified and he didn't receive any points for it. Firouzja had lost 12.5 points in the Sinquefield Cup, but won 15eme Open International d'Echecs de Rouen, which gave him 8.3, which is 4.2 points down. Despite this rating change, Wesley So still didn't have enough points to surpass him. That's the exact reason why Alireza Firouzja qualified for the candidates and Wesley So didn't.

---
Tags: fide, tournament, winning, candidates, wesley-so
---


# Question
Title: How many illegal moves are allowed in Classical, Rapid & Blitz?
As of Jan-2024, I see that **2 illegal** moves are allowed in chess and the 3rd one results in a lose of the game by the one who made those.

> **FIDE 7.4b** After the action taken under Article 7.4.a, for the first two illegal moves by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent in each instance; **for a third illegal move by the same player, the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player**. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

How many illegal moves are allowed for each format as per FIDE?

# Answer
> 5 votes
You are referencing a very old version of the FIDE Laws of Chess. The latest version, FIDE Laws of Chess taking effect from 1 January 2023, says this for the classical format:

> 7.5.5 After the action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 for the first completed illegal move by a player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his/her opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

and this is for rapid and blitz:

> A.3 The penalties mentioned in Articles 7 and 9 of the Competitive Rules of Play shall be one minute instead of two minutes.
>
> A.5.2 If the arbiter observes an action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4, he/she shall act according to Article 7.5.5, provided the opponent has not made his/her next move.

In other words **for all three time controls, a second illegal moves loses the game**. For standard the penalty for a first illegal move is to give the opponent an additional 2 minutes on the clock and in rapid and blitz, one minute on the clock.

---
Tags: rules, fide, blitz, illegal-move, rapid
---


# Question
Title: With perfect play, how many pawns can a queen beat in an endgame?
I know that the queen is commonly said to be worth 9 points of material, but say we're in a queen vs. pawn endgame. Can a lone queen successfully defend against 9 pawns in any possible starting position? What is the limit for a queen defending against pawns? For that matter, what is the limit for each of the other pieces, assuming any possible starting position?

# Answer
If the side with pawns is to move, then it is quite simple to devise a position where just one pawn wins against the queen, by promoting and giving a checkmate.

If the side with the queen is to move, then the queen always at least draws against one pawn, but two pawns may win:

```
[FEN "K7/1PP5/8/8/8/k7/8/1q6 b - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

1...Qe4 2. c8=Q Qa4+ 3. Kb8 Qe4 4. Qc7 Qe8+ 5. Ka7 Qa4+ 6. Kb6 Qb3+ 7. Ka6 Qd3+ 8. Ka7 Qe3+ 9. Qb6 Qe7 10. Qa5+ Kb3 11. Ka6 Qd6+ 12. Qb6+

```

The further the pawns from promotion, the more you need to win.
> 4 votes

# Answer
It's almost impossible to answer this without knowing where the pawns, Queen and Kings are. That said, it normally would take a very large number of pawns to overcome a queen without any imminent threat of promotion. A graphic illustration of this would be "horde chess" on lichess.org, which pits an entire army against 36(!) pawns.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: queen-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Difference in Premove Limits: Lichess vs. Chess.com
I've noticed a distinct difference in the premove system between Lichess and Chess.com. Lichess allows only one premove at a time, whereas Chess.com permits multiple premoves. What is the rationale behind this difference in design? Does it significantly affect the strategy or pace of online chess games?

# Answer
The difference is somewhat significant (chaining premoves can be useful in certain situations, such as promoting an unopposed passed pawn in the endgame), but even more significant is that chess.com takes a tenth of a second off for each move regardless of premoving. This increases the danger of being low on time as a player often cannot effect a checkmate with a handful of seconds remaining even if the position is otherwise completely trivial to win. On lichess, such positions are often winnable regardless of clock situation due to premoving.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, lichess, chess.com
---


title: What are the Rules of Baroque chess?

text:
# Question
Title: What are the Rules of Baroque chess?
I want to do an AI project implementing a Chess agent, so can anyone please let me know the Rules of Baroque chess?

# Answer
Baroque is a very apt name for this variant because the rules are complicated and intricate.

**Similarities**
The main similarities with normal chess are that the game is played on the same 8x8 board with the same pieces, the king is called the king, the king moves and captures the same way, the object of the game is to capture the enemy king and white moves first. **Everything else is different**.

**Names of the pieces**
King = King
Pawn = Pincer or Squeezer
Queen = Withdrawer or Retreater
Rook = Coordinator (if right way up) or Immobilizer (if upside down)
Knight = Long leaper
Bishop = Imitator or Chameleon

**All the pieces (apart from the king) capture in a completely different way to the way they move**

**How the pieces move**
The king moves one square at a time in any direction, just like the king in regular chess
The pincer moves like a rook in regular chess. There is no promotion and obviously no en passant or special first move
All the other pieces move like a queen in regular chess

**How the pieces capture**
The **king** captures the same way as in regular chess, by moving one square in any direction to a square occupied by an enemy piece and removing that piece
The **withdrawer** captures an enemy piece on an adjacent square by moving away from that piece in the opposite direction. For instance if an enemy piece was on e1 and the withdrawer on d2 then to capture the piece on e1 the withdrawer would have to move along the e1-a5 diagonal. Moving off in some other direction, e.g. to d5 would not capture the piece on e1 because the withdrawer would no longer be in line with e1.
The **pincer** captures the same way that pieces capture in Hasami Shogi. That is, the pincer moves in an orthogonal line (i.e. not diagonal) up to the square next to an enemy piece. If the square on the other side of the enemy piece is occupied by a piece on the same side as the pincer then the enemy piece is captured.
The **coordinator**'s (rook the right way up) capture is rather complicated. After the coordinator has moved (like a queen) any enemy pieces on either of the squares where the orthogonal lines from the king and coordinator intersect are captured. So, if the king was on e1 and the coordinator moved to f4 then any enemy piece on e4 or f1 would be captured.
The **immobilizer** (upside down rook) doesn't capture enemy pieces. Instead it immobilizes them. Any enemy pieces a king's move away from the immobilizer are immobilized. They may not move until the immobilizer moves away. This includes the enemy king.
The **long leaper** captures by jumping over enemy pieces, landing on an empty square on the other side. It can capture several enemy pieces in one turn a bit like in draughts or checkers by landing on an empty square between two enemy pieces, leaping again to land on the other side of the second enemy piece, etc. It cannot jump over one of its own pieces and if two enemy pieces are on adjacent squares it also cannot capture. Only "isolated" enemy pieces can be captured.
The **imitator** captures an enemy piece by capturing the way that piece would capture. So, to capture a long leaper it would have to jump over the long leaper the same way the long leaper would. To capture the enemy king it would need to be on an adjacent square to the king and then move to the same square as the king. Obviously (?) imitators can't capture enemy imitators. Furthermore, if an imitator moves to a square adjacent to an enemy immobilizer then the enemy immobilizer is itself immobilized.

The Wikipedia article has diagrams and more explanations of how the pieces capture which is well worth while reading.

**The start of the game**
Before the game starts each player has to choose one of their "rooks" to be an immobilizer and turn that "rook" upside to indicate that. The other rook is the coordinator.
Additionally each player can decide which way round to have their king and withdrawer, either as in classical chess or as in a bong cloud position. All other pieces are placed as in regular chess.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rules, learning, software, chess-variants, baroque-chess
---


# Question
Title: Why does Stockfish only gives -28 to a game with only a W pawn and a B rook remaining, while it should be resolved in perfect play?
In this position (W resigned) with only a pawn and a rook remaining Stockfish should have resolved the game and say "Mate in xx" (with perfect play).

However Stockfish is said to have resolved any game having less than 7 pieces, but it "only" evaluates to -28.

Stockfish is smart but I doubt it knowing that I'm still able to blunder my R at this time :)

I don't see any way for W to draw here, though.

# Answer
> 4 votes
You probably are running it at a shallow depth. My old version of Stockfish recognizes that there is a mate when it gets to depth 32.

There are tablebases available, which engines like Stockfish can use, that have chess solved for 7 or fewer pieces. The instance of Stockfish you're using probably just doesn't use them. (The 7 man tablebase is something like 18.4 terabytes in size; if you're running this locally I'm guessing you don't have the space for it.)

---
Tags: checkmate, stockfish, draw, evaluation, blunder
---


title: Bf5 in the Slav

text:
# Question
Title: Bf5 in the Slav
I've read that it can be a tempting pitfall for Black in the Slav Defense to play an early Bf5, as this results in a weakening of the b7 square, which White might punish with Qb3. This is apparently the rationale for Black to play dxc4, controlling the b3 square.

However, in a recent game, as Black on move 4, I had this position:

```
rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/2p2n2/3p4/2PP4/6P1/PP2PPBP/RNBQK1NR b KQkq - 2 4

```

I played 4...dxc4, but it seems Stockfish considers this a slight inaccuracy after 5.Nf3. Instead, Stockfish thinks 4...Bf5 is best, and if 5.Qb3 then 5...Qb6 and Black has completely equalized.

My question, broadly, is when is Bf5 a good move for Black in the Slav, and when is it dangerous without a prior dxc4? In my game, is part of the problem with 4...dxc4 that White has fianchettoed his bishop on g2, making it dangerous for Black to try to keep the pawn on c4 with 5...b5?

# Answer
Here White has chosen a slow, Catalan-like development, and is less capable of exploiting the weakness of b7.

Every move order has its own flavour but the weakness of b7 (and of the Black queenside light squares as a whole) varies whether White can play such moves as Nxd5, Bb5, Ne5 or even sometimes Bf4/Nb5/Rc1.

Generally, Qb3 or cd5 followed by Qb3 as an answer to ...Bf5 is rarely annoying when the Nb1 is not developed yet.

Indeed, 4...Bf5 is a main line after:

* 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3
* 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2

But is frowned upon after:

* 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3
* 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3
* 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nc3

A key tactical point is the intermediate check Nxf6 after Nxd5. Compare:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5?! 5.cd cd 6.Qb3 Qb6?! (Wojkiewicz played several times 6...Bc8, the best move given the circumstances, with a passive but tenable position) 7.Nxd5! Qxb3 8.Nxf6 ef6 9.ab3 +/-

And

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5!? 5.cd cd 6.Qb3 Qb6 and Black is ok.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Generally speaking, ...Bf5 is most dangerous when White's reply of Qb3 attacks both d5 and b7. For instance, if there were a N on c3, White would win a pawn after, say, ...Qb6, Qxb6, axb6, cxd5, etc.

There are, of course, many instances where this doesn't quite work out as well for White as one might expect. For example, here's a celebrated Capablanca simul loss against Sergei Prokofiev (the famous composer):

(EDIT: it should be pointed out that this line is, in spite of the result, objectively quite bad for Black and not technically a "Slav")

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Simul, 24b"]
[Site "St. Petersburg RUE"]
[Date "1914.05.16"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Jose Raul Capablanca"]
[Black "Sergei Prokofiev"]
[ECO "D02"]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 Bf5 4.Qb3 Nc6 5.Qxb7 Na5 6.Qa6 Nxc4
7.Nc3 e6? (7...Bc8) 8.e4 dxe4 9.Bxc4? (9. Ne5!) exf3 10.Qc6+ Nd7 11.g4 Bg6 12.Bg5
Be7 13.Bxe7 Kxe7 14.O-O-O Re8 15.h4 h5 16.gxh5 Bxh5 17.Nb5 Kf8
18.d5 Qf6 19.dxe6 (19.Qxd7 Qf4+) Ne5 20.Qc5+ Kg8 21.exf7+ Bxf7 22.Bxf7+ Qxf7
23.Kb1 Rab8 24.Nxc7 Rbc8 25.Rc1 Re7 26.Qd6 Rexc7 27.Rxc7 Qxc7
28.Qe6+ Kh8 29.a3 Qc2+ 30.Ka1 Nd3 31.Rb1 Nxf2 32.h5 Qc6 33.Qf5
Ne4 34.Qxf3 Nd2 35.Qxc6 Rxc6 36.Rd1 Rc2 37.Rg1 Rc5 38.Rg6 Rxh5
39.Ra6 Nb3+ 40.Ka2 Ra5 41.Rxa5 Nxa5 42.b4 g5 43.Kb2 g4 0-1

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, slav-defense
---


title: I'm Complete Beginner, where to start?

text:
# Question
Title: I'm Complete Beginner, where to start?
I'm a complete beginner and would like to ask for advice in finding the best source of learning materials and path to follow. I heard about chess.com as a one stop shop in terms of lessons as well as an online playing platform etc. I'm not young, hence looking for best recommendations. I don't mind paying small monthly membership for convenience of having everything in one place as reference material. I'm starting completely from scratch.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Honestly, chess.com is great. There are free alternatives, though. Such as https://lichess.org/learn#/.

There are also so many free instructional YouTube videos, from Grandmasters and IMs. You might start by searching "St. Louis Chess Club" on YouTube and browsing the videos there.

Lastly, the website https://chessable.com is quite good, but courses can be quite expensive. It's still a really good resource to keep in mind, though.

# Answer
> 1 votes
if want books you can get the step method https://www.stappenmethode.nl/ 6 levels great educational value.

# Answer
> 1 votes
First of all, congratulations for taking up this great hobby.

I think, it will be very helpful to have a *structured* introduction to chess, rather than collecting different materials from many different sources.

If you choose chess.com as a one stop shop, I can recommend the short "Everything you need to know" series by IM Daniel Rensch. It is also very important that you understand the opening principles and learn about chess tactics and checkmating patterns. Regarding endgames, the first thing you should learn is how to checkmate with a queen or a rook.

You can start by only learning on chess.com, but you may find it very helpful to additionally buy a good book that gives you a structured introduction to chess. You can also consider ChessFactor, a site where you can learn a full chess course with exercises, choosing your own path depending on your level completely for free.

## General

Make it a habit to check your opponent's options! Ask yourself, what your opponent's threat is, especially don't sacrifice/lose material without a good reason. A pawn is worth 1 point of material, a minor piece (bishop/knight) is worth approx. 3, a rook 5 and the queen 9 points of material. Make sure that you don't lose material when trading pieces.

Before making a move, check that your opponent cannot react in a way that will hurt you (e.g. win material by taking a hanging piece).

Don't play fast time controls (including Blitz). You'll pick up very bad habits (e.g. not checking your opponents options) that will prevent you from making progress. Start with long games (rapid) where you have enough time to think about your moves and only play Blitz when you've accumulated some experience.

Analyze each game after you played it and try to figure out what your worst mistake was and how you can prevent it the next time.

## Opening

Learn the opening principles! I can not overemphasize their importance. They allow you to find good moves easily. You can get to at least 1200 with these principles without studying any concrete opening lines. Always ask yourself "what is my most efficient move", i.e. fulfilling most of the principles at the same time. For example, Nf3 is generally a better move than Nh3, even though both develop a piece, because the knight on f3 controls the center.

Learn what chess players mean by space, time and material.

You cannot go wrong by this very simple rule for your first opening move: Move your e (King's) pawn 2 squares forward at your first move. If you are Black and you cannot do that because the pawn could be taken, move the Queen's pawn two squares forward instead. This literally works against every first move that White can throw at you! You can learn a bit more opening theory, but total beginners typically invest their time more effectively by improving other parts of their game.

## Middlegame

* Learn about candidate moves (checks, captures, threats).
* learn the most important tactics (motifs, such as pin, double attack, skewer, etc.) and practise them by solving chess puzzles
* learn the most important checkmate patterns

## Endgame

* learn how to mate with a queen or a rook
* learn how to promote a pawn against a bare king

# Answer
> 1 votes
The best place to start is by joining a local chess club. There you will find other chess players who will be very happy to help you to learn and improve your chess. Just by going along to the chess club you will receive continuous support for what you are doing from other like-minded people.

Probably the best single thing you can do is to play over-the-board chess with other human beings. This provides far more feedback and help than playing online.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Try the free website https://korpalskichess.com/?page\_id=61138 which starts from the rules of the game and advances to quite complicated combinations.

# Answer
> 0 votes
These are some resources I think anybody who wants to get into chess should use.

Good "beginner" chess books to read:

* Mammoth Book of Chess
* How to Win at Chess
* Chess for Zebras

Online resources:

* Chessable
* Chess.com lessons
* LearningChess.net

Puzzles:

* Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess
* Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations and Games
* Chess.com puzzles (should probably get membership if you want to solve a lot)
* ChessPuzzle.net

Videos:

I hope these recommendations help you get better at chess and get more involved in the chess community.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Tactics. Review old games. Learn openings.

---
Tags: learning, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Identifying stalemate in chess engine output (UCI)
I am using Stockfish 15.1 via UCI to analyse chess positions.

Unfortunately, the UCI documentation is a bit silent on how stalemates should be handled. As shown in the example below, it seems that stalemate results in the response "info depth 0 score cp 0".

Can I safely assume that this output only occurs in case the position is in stalemate? (E.g., my understanding is that positions that are mate will be answered by "mate 0").

Could a stalemate position provoke any other response from the engine than "info depth 0 score cp 0"?

```
Starting Stockfish analysis on fen 8/4R3/PB5k/6R1/7P/5B2/5PP1/7K b - - 0 45
Stockfish output: info string NNUE evaluation using nn-ad9b42354671.nnue enabled
Stockfish output: info depth 0 score cp 0
Stockfish output: bestmove (none)

```

Bonus question: Is there any other case where the engine responds with "bestmove (none)"? When would this be the case?

# Answer
The uci protocol does not maintain the stalemate state of the position. However the engine can send this information via the `info string` command.

```
info string This position is stalemate.

```

If this engine is run in the gui, the gui may display `This position is stalemate.` to the user.

It is not safe to consider `"info depth 0 score cp 0"` as stalemate. It can be from 3-fold repetition, fifty-move draw rule or insufficient mating material.

The `"bestmove (none)"` is not according to uci protocol. The correct message should be sent as:

```
bestmove 0000

```

I tried to maintain the uci protocol in github repository, to improve and clarify it.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, uci
---


# Question
Title: Are Stockfish "Mate in X" counts ever over-optimistic?
When Stockfish gives an evaluation of, say #15, I have seen cases where this is pessimistic, and it subsequently revises its evaluation to say #9.

Are there cases where it thinks it can mate in 15, but on further analysis it realises that it missed some ways where black can escape? Or it needs to revise its mate length wards?

# Answer
This should not happen. If it does, it's a bug. If you ever see it happen, be sure to tell the devs.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, stockfish
---


title: Trying to improve

text:
# Question
Title: Trying to improve
I have a question hopefully someone can help me out.

3 days ago I won a tournament (25+5) semi-rapid section under 1450 OTB. I scored 5/5 beating some high rated players.

My rating OTB semi-rapid prior to the tournament was 1244 and my chess.com rating is 1840. The strongest part of my game is tactics, positional play is just ok. I met with an IM some months ago, he looked at a few positions with me and he rated my tactics as 2000-2100 and my positional play as a 1500...

Now as **White**

1. -I play the Vienna against e5
2. -Advanced variation against the Caro-Kann and I pray that they play Bf5 line so that I can enter the Tal
3. -I play the Smith-Morra against the Sicilian
4. -I used to play the advanced variation against the French but I am not a huge fan, now I am looking for some dynamic (kind of) of beat variation Schlechter variation
5. * against the Modern I play Nc3 and 3 pawns attack

Now as **Black**

1. I play the Caro-Kann against e4, I enjoy it a lot, I won 3 games with the Caro in the tournament
2. I play the Classical Dutch against d4,c4,Nf3

Now the question, I want to try to push to 2000-2100 chess.com. I realize that my openings are my strongest point, my middlegame is quite decent and endgames are just ok.

I also realize that I get quite impatient so I start taking a lot of risks (rook for bishop/knight sacrifice for some imbalance, sometimes brilliant move, sometimes blunder :D) especially with black and I end up losing.

I am hoping for some advice how to work on that and some ideas on how to improve, be it opening or some other type of advice.

# Answer
From what I see, you tend to play very aggressive and unsafe openings as white and on the other hand you like playing more solid and positional opening as black. Also you say that you like tactics and struggle with the positional play.

And I think here lies your opportunity for the improvement! Usually in chess development when you have such disproportion in your skills, you should find a way to eliminate that and not hone it by just avoiding what you don't like.

I suggest you try playing more solid lines/opening as white for some time and also study some games on the topic, to get your positional play on the same level as you have your tactics. Don't worry, you won't lose your vision, but on the other hand being more versatile player is a true key to success.

Of course, you may find it challenging and lose a lot of games, when you try to switch to more solid and positional play out of the blue, but after some time you'll become confident and will notice a real boost in your performance. You will understand how to play safe and win and gain some patience which is crucial in chess.

This has been proved by many players including myself and Magnus Carlsen who at the time invested a lot of time playing different openings and styles to get the grasp on chess at its fullest.

Now to the practice:

1. You can try to drastically change your white repertoire for the time being, something like 1. d4 or 1.Nf3. This is the hardest but will also give the bigger boost
2. Just switch to main lines instead of playing the most aggressive gambits for everything. Ruy Lopez, Scotch, Italian for e5, advance variations for Caro-Cann/French and choose main lines later, some classic Nf3-d4-Nc3 against the Sicilian

Hope it helps, Jan
> 2 votes

# Answer
When you are working on your chess you should focus on:

* improving your strengths
* improving you weaknesses

As you told us tactics is your strength. That is great! Get yourself a copy of any good puzzle book and feed your brain with more patterns. Do not forget to work on calculation.

Now to your weaknesses. I believe that your issue with positional chess is highly connected to your black opening problem. You rely too much on tactic and might know less about positional play. I believe players like you are the ideal victims of stronger players, who play the London System.
Get a copy of improving your chess pattern recognition.

I was relatively strong positionally, but learned so much from this book.

I have recently analysed a very positional game from the Junior World Championship. Just look how GM Nesterov creates weaknesses and exploits them.

Demolition of the London
> 2 votes

# Answer
I would give two pieces of advice.

First:

> I get quite impatient so I start taking a lot of risks (rook for bishop/knight sacrifice for some imbalance, sometimes brilliant move, sometimes blunder :D) especially with black and I end up losing.

Any sacrifice is a tactical decision and tactics must be backed with hard calculation. If you don't calculate your exchange sacrifices then you are playing "hope chess". Sometimes you get lucky and win. Sometimes your opponent gets the luck from your slack play and you lose. Never play a tactic without calculating at least one move beyond the end of the combination. The "one move beyond" part is important because otherwise you risk your opponent having a saving / winning move at the end which you didn't consider because you stopped calculating early.

> I realize that my openings are my strongest point, my middlegame is quite decent and endgames are just ok

Not surprising that the weakest part of your game is the endgame. If you want to move to the next level you need to stop giving away half points or even full points because of lack of endgame knowledge and technique.

The English GM, Jonathan Hawkins, was a late developer. He didn't start studying chess seriously until his late teenage years. That he went on to become an IM in his late 20's and a GM at 31. After becoming an IM he wrote a book, *Amateur to IM*, describing what he did to go from mediocre club player to the IM title.

I highly recommend the book. It is all about endgame technique. It starts by describing how you should think in the endgame, how you should plan and what approach you should take. Playing the endgame well is all about the right attitude of mind. He describes this attitude of mind, how to plan, what to be thinking about and looking out for.

Of course knowledge and calculation are also extremely important and he gives the key concepts which he thinks are most important.

The most important thing a player needs to do is win their won games. There is nothing more frustrating than reaching what should be a winning endgame only to let it slip away because of poor knowledge and application.
> 1 votes

# Answer
This is not complicated. Just study tactics, tactics, tactics. I recommend the book Woodpecker Method, but there are others. If you can do that whole book in a short amount of time, you will whiz to 2000 immediately.
> 1 votes

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


# Question
Title: Why is it better to take with the knight than with the pawn in this position?
```
[fen "r3k1nr/p2b1ppp/4p3/3pP3/8/1p1B4/2PN1PPP/R3K2R w - - 0 1"]

```

I recently had a chess game in which I played as white and the position was as shown in the picture. I chose the move cxb3, but the chess engine states that the move Nxb3 is better. Why is it better to take with the knight rather than the pawn in this position?

# Answer
> Why is it better to take with the knight rather than the pawn in this position?

Taking with the pawn is bad for the pawn, the knight and the bishop while taking with the knight is good for all those three pieces.

First, **the knight**

With the pawn on b3 the knight has no future. It is tied down in a passive position on d2 having to defend the weak pawn on the open file. Furthermore it is blocked from moving forward to either e4 or c4 by the black pawn on d5 which is now a supported passed pawn. So, the pawn capture has even improved the black pawn on d5.

With the knight on b3 the knight is much better. For the moment it is protected by the pawn on c2 but it could also move to d4, a fine outpost from which it blockades the black pawn on d5 (which is no longer passed) and from which it can't easily be moved. As a bonus it also protects the pawn on c2 freeing up the bishop if it wants to move.

Alternatively, possibly after connecting the rooks by castling or moving Kd2 or Ke2, the knight could move to c5 threatening to either exchange itself for the bishop or blockade the a7 pawn on a6.

Another possible route for the knight would be Nb3-a5-b7-d6. Although black would have to play badly to allow this.

The knight has a much, much brighter future on b3.

**The pawn**

On b3 the pawn is much weaker than on c2 where it anchors the bishop and prevents the black d5 pawn from being passed.

**The bishop**

With the pawn on c2 the bishop has a role protecting the pawn. If the pawn moves to b3 then the bishop has to move to the passive square c2 to protect the pawn.

At the end of the day black is still a pawn up but that pawn is weak, black's bishop is bad and white is ahead in development.
> 24 votes

# Answer
Disadvantages of cxb3:

1. Black's d pawn becomes a *protected passed pawn*. This becomes increasingly relevant as fewer and fewer pieces are left to stop it from promoting d4-d3-d2-d1=Q.
2. The c pawn loses a natural defender (bishop), and must now be defended by a poor defender (knight). Bishops defend pawns better than knights because they are harder to distract/kick away, and can do other things while defending. But wait, can't we defend our new b3 pawn with Bc2? We could. But then our active attacking+defending bishop becomes a passive defender!
3. The bishop loses a defender. Maybe it's not relevant now. But it might play a role in the future. LPDO.

Advantages of Nxb3:

1. The knight is promoted from the 2nd rank to the 3rd!
2. The knight is one step closer to centralization. (Although, admittedly, there is an alternative path to knight centralization: Nf3-Nd4.)
3. The knight gains a safe outpost. (An outpost is a square defended by a pawn.)
4. The knight controls more squares (a5, c5, d4).
> 0 votes

# Answer
Just look at the activity of the knight. Because of the black pawn on d5, the c4 and e4 squares are out, f3 leads nowhere and even rerouting to e3 through f1 for example does nothing.

Now look at the activity of the knight on b3. It can jump to c5 and start making threats, it can jump to a5 and blockade the a-pawn with a bunch of interesting jumps from there, it has a nice potential square on d4 that controls a lot of the light-squares of the opponents bishop and let's it jump to b5 making threats on c7 and d6. Activity, activity, activity.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy, online-chess, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Opportunities to Play Online Chess with Grandmasters for a 2000 Elo Player
I'm an avid chess player with an Elo rating of around 2000, and I'm interested in exploring opportunities to play online chess against Grandmasters.

Are there any online platforms or tournaments where players of my level can compete against or play with Grandmasters? I'm curious about both casual and competitive environments.

Additionally, if such opportunities exist, how does one qualify or register for these events?

# Answer
> 3 votes
There are some ways where you can get a match vs GMs. I've played a bunch of them in the following ways:

1. Many GMs like Minh Le, Benjamin Bok, Eric Hansen, and Hikaru stream on Twitch. Sometimes, they play against their viewers through arenas and individual challenges. So, if you tune in to those streams, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to get a game versus them.
2. Apart from streaming, there are online arenas regularly on chess.com and lichess.org(for example, Titled Tuesday, Titled Arena, and Bullet Brawl) where several titled players participate(including many GMs). If you have a title, you'll be able to verse them. If you don't have one, don't worry; there are other arenas where GMs participate(Warmup for Titled Arenas, Community Events, etc.).
3. There are GM trainers available for coaching on chess.com and lichess.org. You can contact them for personalised training games, too. In return, they'll charge you some money.

Good luck!

---
Tags: tournament, online-chess, elo, grandmaster
---


# Question
Title: Is There an Official World Championship for Bullet Chess?
I'm curious about the official status of Bullet Chess championships. While we have established world championships for classical, rapid, and blitz chess, I'm wondering if there is a similar official world championship specifically for Bullet Chess.

Bullet Chess, known for its extremely fast pace (usually 1 minute per player per game), is quite popular online, but does it have an official world championship recognized by FIDE or any other major chess organization?

# Answer
> Bullet Chess, known for its extremely fast pace (usually 1 minute per player per game), is quite popular online, but does it have an official world championship recognized by FIDE

No.

For standard rate chess the latest regulations (FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 March 2024) say this:

> **1. Rate of Play**
>
> 1.1 For a game to be rated each player must at the start of the game have the following minimum periods in which to complete all the moves, assuming the game lasts 60 moves.
>
> Where at least one of the players in the game has a rating of 2400 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 120 minutes.
>
> Where at least one of the players in the game has a rating 1800 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 90 minutes.
>
> Where both of the players in the game are rated below 1800, each player must have a minimum of 60 minutes.

For shorter time controls the FIDE Rapid and Blitz Rating Regulations effective from 1 March 2024 say this:

> **1. Rate of Play**
>
> 1.1 For a game to be rated each player must have the following periods in which to complete all the moves:
>
> 1.1.1 for a rapid game all the moves must be made in a fixed time of more than 10 minutes but less than 60 minutes for each player; or the time allotted + 60 times any increment must be more than 10 minutes but less than 60 minutes for each player;
>
> 1.1.2 for a blitz game all the moves must be made in a fixed time of more than 3 minutes but not more than 10 minutes for each player; or the time allotted + 60 times any increment must be more than 3 minutes but not more than 10 minutes for each player.
>
> **1.2 Games where the players have different playing times are not rated.**

So, for the moment, FIDE does not recognise time controls where the players have 3 minutes each or less.
> 2 votes

# Answer
If you mean in the sense of a FIDE-sanctioned event, no. OTB bullet is an awkward affair to manage given the chaos at the board it inevitably creates and thus most competitions are held online. Lichess has a yearly bullet event, and chess.com has an annual event as well.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: fide, tournament, world-championship, bullet-chess
---


title: Material value of the super-king

text:
# Question
Title: Material value of the super-king
In standard chess, everyone knows that the king is the weakest piece, being able to move one square in any direction (diagram below), with its movement often hindered by enemy pieces and even friendly pieces (hence the possibility of back-rank mates). The protection of the king is a must for both players, and the only things that define the existence of a game of standard chess.

But, what if we could worry less about losing the king? What if we could be proud for having more opportunities for our king to attack?" What if we powered up the king by giving it another circle of protection?

Say hello to the "super-king." It would be a *king + knight + alibaba* compound piece in reality, but "super-king" is a cool name for this goated king. On a 8x8 board, it would control up to 3/8 of it if unhindered (diagram below). No longer will the king be defenseless; the king finally understood what it meant to protect his army.

To demonstrate where I'd like to employ the super-king and ultimately answer to the intentions behind my question, I'm going to devise a new variant creatively named "Superking chess" where the standard king in chess is replaced with the super-king for both sides. In this variant, you would add five more starting moves (bringing the total to 25) with the superking (first moves with White highlighted below, apologies in advance for the clutter), akin to more aggressive Bongcloud openings.

Normally, kings wouldn't be very active until the endgame, but my amateur mind is thinking that a super-king in this variant described could provide opportunities for very sharp games as it could be very active in the middlegame with its increased mobility and even the opening if possible because of the additional resources it now provides with a larger field of attack/defense. I'd also surmise that games of this variant could last much longer because it would be harder to mate a super-king (ladder mates would be basically impossible, for example) and the goal of preserving much more material would be much more distinguished in the ultimate goal for either side to win. Further analysis on these comments would be much appreciated!

My ultimate question with the entire query is: **"How much material value would the super-king in 'Superking chess' possess?"**

As a slightly unrelated follow-up question, how much material value would the super-king possess in a variant I'd like to call "Mega-Royalty chess," whereby the queens would be further replaced with amazons (with White now being able to play 27 starting moves, diagram shown below)?

I'm honestly fine with anyone giving an answer to just my main question (bolded for convenience), but I'm more than grateful if you can answer the follow-up as well. Thank you! :)

# Answer
The powers of "SuperKing" and many other variations on standard chess pieces are explored in the game "Chess Evolved". If the SuperKing were not invaluable (i.e., a King) and was just another piece it would still be nearly as strong as a Queen provided it could jump to squares a knight's move away (i.e., like the "Dragon+" in Chess Evolved). In general, most chess variants struggle with adding more powerful pieces to the 8x8 board, and I would imagine this would be no exeception.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, unorthodox-pieces
---


title: Longest *fairy* chess problem

text:
# Question
Title: Longest *fairy* chess problem
Longest orthodox chess problem

One for the specialists. In the newest SCHWALBE I saw some titanic lengths (one problem had 2^59+2^57+3 ~ 10^18 moves!) As you see, this scales with O(2^(n^2)), where n is the chess board length. Which is rather puny to what *might* be possible, e.g. a problem scaling with the Ackermann function. Anyone knowing the current record holder for any fairy chess problem, no holds barred, only uniqueness of solution is required?

EDIT (due to comments): You can have an arbitrarily-sized board or sneak in infinity via new pieces. In this sense, the answer *is* "infinity". So I should better ask for an actual, printed, stipulation of the form "Something happens in n moves", where you "just" have to beat the above value. In the Dawson example, the possible infinity is stated (and the first n values on largers board are given in a reprint - I know this problem from there), but these printed n are of course \<\<10^18.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Is there a clear definition of what constitutes a "fairy" problem? For instance, if you can stipulate a change to the dimensions of the board, then solutions of an infinite length could be devised. Here's an amusing example of such a "dimensional" puzzle:

# Answer
> 1 votes
On request, here is the problem: SCHWALBE 324-2, Article "Die Valladao-Challenge" by Jochen Schröder, p.389, Nr. 5, by Jochen Schröder, help-aim square h8, 2+59, in 720575940379279357 moves, conditions Antigrid, king dynasty, shortestmover w, diagram anticirce Cheylan w, sentinelles generalises en, noires wb, and black pawns everywhere *except* ws a5, wk b3, empty a1 h1, bb b1 c1 f1 g1, bk d1, drop hole e1. Solution implements a waiting queue and I won't type it here, see article.

---
Tags: problems, chess-variants, records
---


title: Mate in 4. Difficult. Going crazy

text:
# Question
Title: Mate in 4. Difficult. Going crazy
A friend sent me this puzzle. He insists that Black has a mate in 4. I just can't find it.

Can someone see a mate in 4 moves here?

# Answer
I am not sure if the black king is in rank 1, but if it is, here's the mate in 4:

```
[FEN "R5R1/6PK/1N1r2PP/2QB1p2/8/p1np1r2/1ppq4/1k6 b - - 0 1"]

1... Qxh6+ 2. Kxh6 c1=Q+ 3. Qe3 (3. Kh7 Rh3#) 3... Qxe3+ 4. Kh7 Rh3#

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: checkmate
---


title: The 50 moves game

text:
# Question
Title: The 50 moves game
Play the longest game from the starting position such that *each* move resets the 50 move rule (i.e. is a pawn move or a capture).

As I see it, each pawn quartet on adjacent lines has maximally 4+6+6+6 moves with 4 captures (and the pawns pestering the kings will be a separate problem). After that, 32-2-4 capturable pieces remain. The absolute maximum thus is 114 half moves, but I severely doubt this is reachable.

# Answer
> 13 votes
I have managed **106** single moves (see below).

As OP notes, if 12 pawns promote, capturing the other 4 pawns, then all captures by officers must be on 1st/8th ranks. So that would be 88+26=114.

Can this be improved? It's hard to imagine more than 12 pawns promoting, because it would imply officers being captured in the middle of the board, which they can only reach by capturing pawns themselves in the middle of the board. So we stick with the basic plan, and then there are only two aspects that might in principle be reduced:

1. Pawns capturing in the promotion move.
2. Extra pieces on the board in the final position.

Here I have 7+1. (So 5 pawns promote without capture, and there is wQ remaining at game-end.) Theoretically, it might be difficult to go below 4+0, as we need to clear squares for capture-less promotion on each side of each king.

Anyway, here it is...

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. a3 g6 2. a4 g5 3. a5 g4 4. a6 g3 5. hxg3 bxa6 6. g4 a5 7. g5 a4 8. g6 a3 9. g7 a2 10. b3 h6 11. b4 h5 12. b5 h4 13. b6 h3 14.b7 h2 15. g3 a6 16. g4 a5 17. g5 a4 18. g6 a3 19. e3 c6 20. e4 c5 21. e5 c4 22. e6 c3 23. dxc3 fxe6 24. c4 e5 25. c5 e4 26. c6 e3 27. c7 e2 28. c3 e6 29. c4 e5 30. c5 e4 31. c6 e3 32. f3 d6 33. f4 d5 34. f5 d4 35. f6 d3 36. cxb8=R exf1=R+ 37. Kxf1 hxg1=B 38. Rxc8 e2+ 39. Kxg1 e1=B 40. Rxa8 d2 41. c7 axb1=R 42. b8=R Rxa1 43. c8=B Rxc1 44. Qxc1 a2 45. gxf8=N d1=R 46. g7 a1=R 47. gxh8=N Qxc8 48. Qxa1 Qxb8 49. f7+ Kxf8 50. Qxd1 Qxa8 51. fxg8=N Qxh1+ 52. Kxh1 Kxg8 53. Qxe1 Kxh8

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
An excellent question which I've no idea of the answer to. To illustrate the difficulties, however, here's a very cursory attempt which only manages to get to 81 half moves.

```
[FEN ""]

1. d3 h6 2. Bxh6 g6 3. Bxf8 e6 4. e3 c6 5. d4 a6 6. Bxa6 b6 7. Bxc8 d6 8. c3 f6 9. b3 b5 10. e4 c5 11. f3 d5 12. g3 e5 13. f4 f5 14. g4 g5 15. c4 exd4 16. a3 d3 17. a4 d4 18. a5 fxg4 19. a6 g3 20. a7 Rxa7 21. b4 Rxa1 22. e5 g2 23. f5 g4 24. f6 g3 25. h3 d2+ 26. Kxd2 gxh1=R 27. f7+ Kxf7 28. Be6+ Kxf8 29. Bxg8 bxc4 30. b5 Rxb1 31. b6 d3 32. Bxc4 g2 33. Bxd3 c4 34. h4 Rxg1 35. Qxg1 Rxb6 36. Qxb6 cxd3 37. h5 g1=Q 38. h6 Rxh6 39. Qxb8 Qxb8 40. e6 Rxe6 41. Kxd3

```

---
Tags: problems, records, 50-move-rule
---


# Question
Title: When and Where is the Next World Classic Chess Championship?
I am curious to know the details about the next World Classic Chess Championship. Specifically, I would like to find out when and where it will be held.

# Answer
The date and venue for the Chess World Championship(Classical) are still not out. It's usually decided after the Candidates tournament is over. Candidates will happen from 2-25 April 2024 in Toronto, Canada.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: tournament, world-championship, international-master
---


# Question
Title: Which Chess Notation is Most Commonly Used in Grandmaster Classic Games?
I'm interested in understanding the preferred method of notation used in classic games played by grandmasters. Specifically, I'd like to know which version of writing the moves of a game is more common in high-level play such as grandmaster tournaments.

Is there a particular style or format of notation that is predominantly used in these settings?

# Answer
Algebraic notation is the official notation of FIDE; if a player records the game in a different notation system, their scoresheet may not be used as evidence in the event of a dispute.

> I'm interested in understanding the preferred method of notation used in classic games played by grandmasters.

The notation is the same for everyone, regardless of their title(s).
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, theory, history, grandmaster, notation
---


title: Why was this move a miss?

text:
# Question
Title: Why was this move a miss?
Was reviewing a recent game and the chess.com engine told me that this move was a miss, and that instead I should have played Kf8. I really don't understand the logic behind this. Is there some sort of threat I'm not seeing here? Why would I prevent myself from castling when I could just block the check?

```
[Title "Confusing machine evaluation"]
[fen "rnbqk1nr/pp2bppp/8/1Bpp4/8/3P4/PPP1QPPP/RNB1K1NR b - - 0 1"]
 [Startply "1"]

1...Bd7? (1...Kf8!)

```

# Answer
The key to the position is black's strong center with pawns on d5 and c5. This gives black the chance to trap the white bishop with a6, b5, c4. Note that normally, in Sicilian positions where this trap also occurs, white having a pawn on d3 would stop this threat because of d3xc4. White doesn't have time to counter this threat because black is also threatening to win the bishop with Qa5+.

Here are the different ways white can try and wriggle and how they fail.

```
[Title "Why Kf8 wins a piece for two pawns"]
[fen "rnbqk1nr/pp2bppp/8/1Bpp4/8/3P4/PPP1QPPP/RNB1K1NR b - - 0 1"]

1...Kf8 2. Bd2 {stops Qa5+} (2. c3 {stops the check and creates an escape square on c2 for the bishop if black plays a6...} Qa5 {but black's d5 pawn seals the bishop's fate. It has nowhere to go} 3. d4 {protecting the bishop with the queen} c4 {cutting off the bishops retreat and protection} 4. Na3 {one last hope. Note that if white's queen hadn't broken normal development rules and moved early then the bishop would have had a safe retreat square all along on a4} a6 (4...Bxa3?? 5. Qe8#) 5. Bxc4 {all that's left is to grab a pawn for the piece} Bxa3 6. Bd3 Bd6) a6 3. Ba4 b5 4. Bb3 c4 5. dxc4 dxc4 6. Bxc4 bxc4 7. Qxc4

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
The Bishop on b5 is lost after Kf8 due to either Qa5+ or a6/b5. Reminiscent of a famous "trap" from over a hundred years ago:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "St. Petersburg"]
[Site "St. Petersburg  RUE"]
[Date "1914.04.22"]
[EventDate "1914.04.21"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Alexander Alekhine"]
[Black "Joseph Henry Blackburne"]
[ECO "C61"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "89"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4 4. Nxd4 exd4 5. O-O g6 6. d3
Bg7 7. f4 c6 8. Bc4 d5 9. exd5 cxd5 10. Bb5+ Kf8 11. Nd2 Qa5
12. a4 a6 13. Nb3 Qd8 14. Bd2 axb5 15. axb5 Rxa1 16. Bb4+ Ne7
17. Qxa1 Bf6 18. Qa7 b6 19. Re1 Be6 20. Kh1 h5 21. Bxe7+ Qxe7
22. Qxb6 Qb4 23. Qc5+ Qxc5 24. Nxc5 Bd8 25. Nxe6+ fxe6
26. Rxe6 Kf7 27. Rd6 Be7 28. Rxd5 Rc8 29. c4 dxc3 30. bxc3
Rxc3 31. Kg1 Ke6 32. Re5+ Kd6 33. Re3 Rb3 34. Kf1 Rb4 35. Re4
Rb2 36. Re3 h4 37. Re4 Bf6 38. b6 Kd5 39. Re8 Rxb6 40. Kf2 Rb3
41. Rg8 Rxd3 42. Rxg6 Ke6 43. g4 hxg3+ 44. hxg3 Kf5 45.Rg8
1/2-1/2

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, blunder
---


# Question
Title: Handling Illegal Moves by Both Players in a Blitz Game: Rules and Arbiter's Role
In a recent blitz chess game, a situation left me uncertain about the official rules and how they are enforced. Both players, including myself, made illegal moves, but these were not immediately noticed. They called the arbiter to point out my illegal move only after my opponent's subsequent move.

In a blitz game, what is the ruling when both players make illegal moves, but the error is only called out after both moves have been played? Does the game continue from the current position, or are there specific penalties?

# Answer
> 5 votes
> In a blitz game, what is the ruling when both players make illegal moves, but the error is only called out after both moves have been played?

According to the FIDE Laws of Chess, illegal moves in rapid and blitz can only be flagged and punished before the next move by the opponent has been made. An illegal move which is identified late can only be corrected with the agreement of both players:

> A.5.2 If the arbiter observes an action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 \[i.e. an illegal move\], he/she shall act according to Article 7.5.5, **provided the opponent has not made his/her next move**. If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim, provided the opponent has not made his/her next move. If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue. Once the opponent has made his/her next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without intervention of the arbiter.

There is one situation where the arbiter can intervene after a series of illegal moves have been made and that is when an illegal position persists on the board for more than one move:

> A.5.4 If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn stands on the rank furthest from its starting position, he/she shall wait until the next move is completed. **Then, if an illegal position is still on the board, he/she shall declare the game drawn.**

---
Tags: rules, blitz, illegal-move, arbiters
---


# Question
Title: Selection Criteria for Top Tier Participants in the Tata Steel Chess Tournament
I'm curious about the process of selecting participants for the top tier (Masters) of the Tata Steel Chess Tournament, held annually in Wijk aan Zee, Netherlands. This prestigious event attracts some of the world's best chess players. I'm interested in understanding the criteria or the selection process used to invite these top-tier players each year.

Is the selection based on world rankings, previous performances in other tournaments, invitations, or a combination of these factors? Also, are there specific qualifications that players need to meet to be considered for the Masters section of the Tata Steel Chess Tournament?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Chessbase has an interesting article which gives some details:

> **Anyone who wins a tournament below the Masters can move up a division the following year**. This is how Alexander Donchenko slipped into the Masters 2024 after winning the Challengers last year.
>
> **The other players are invited**, and once again Jeroen van den Berg's team will ensure a special mix. **Some of the absolute top players will be playing, the Dutch top players, but also up-and-coming talents**. ...
>
> Ding Liren is back at the chessboard ...
>
> Ian Nepomniachtchi and Alireza Firouzja, ranked fifth and sixth in the world respectively, will also be playing. **Anish Giri, Jorden van Foreest and Max Warmerdam will represent the host nation**. Praggnandhaa, Vidit and Gukesh will represent the motherland of chess.
>
> Parham Maghsoodloo, Nodirbek Abdusattorov and Wei Yi represent the Asian continent. In recent years there have been very few Chinese men in the top tournaments, why? Reigning Women's World Champion Ju Wenjun will be the only woman in the Masters field.

So, the previous year's Challenger's winner gets an automatic place and then they select a mix of top world players, top Dutch players and then strong young players.

---
Tags: tournament, grandmaster, tata-steel
---