# Question
Title: Did it make sense for Lasker to play the Exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez in 1914?
In 1914, world champion Emanuel Lasker was trailing future world champion J.R. Capablanca in a tournament, meaning that he needed to win, not just draw, against Capablanca.

He played the exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez, trading his best attacking pieces, his queen and light squared bishop, early in this classic game. For these reasons, the variation was considered "drawish." Except that Lasker won.

Here's some background that may explain why:

1. Lasker was the best endgame player in the world. Capablanca was inferior (at the time) in this regard. (Both of these opinions are Capablanca's.)
2. Capablanca was already a ferocious middle game player (and seen as such).
3. At the time, Lasker was 46 years old and Capablanca was 26. Lasker was more "mature."

In "Chess Fundamentals," Capablanca noted that immediately after the queen exchange, "The reader should note that if all the pieces were exchanged, White would be practically a pawn ahead and therefore have a won game." In fact, Capablanca was "rattled" by the prospect of a lost endgame and therefore misplayed what passed for a middle game.

Even though it was regarded as "unconventional," did Lasker's strategy make sense from the point of view of his endgame advantage?

# Answer
It made perfect sense.

He was very familiar with the opening:

> Lasker played hundreds of practice games with the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez and discovered what he thought was every mistake White or Black could make.

Source: #247: 300 Wisest Things Said about Chess: With 300 Annotated Positions

Lasker was well known to adapt his playing style to the opponent's psychology.

> Lasker was considered to have a "psychological" method of play in which he considered the subjective qualities of his opponent, in addition to the objective requirements of his position on the board. Richard Réti published a lengthy analysis of Lasker's play in which he concluded that Lasker deliberately played inferior moves that he knew would make his opponent uncomfortable.

Source: wikipedia

Your research has shown that the opening took Capablanca out of his stride and scored the full point, so yes it made perfect sense.
> 12 votes

# Answer
White doubles Black's pawns in order to enter a winning endgame - White can create a passer, Black cannot. Thus, White's strategy could be to trade off all the pieces, before Black can put his pieces to work.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Lasker already knew at that point that Capa was a far superior player and that's evidenced by the fact that when they met for the world championship, Lasker didn't win a single game. Lasker was playing for draws to save face. He knew he couldn't beat Capa and that's why he later tried to refuse to even play him for the world championship.

I completely disagree with your assertion that Lasker was better in the endgame. I learned a lot about the endgame from reading Capa's books. Maybe more than any other author. I can't say I ever learned anything from Lasker. He beat a near 60 year old Steinitz to win the title and then refused to play any top contenders for the next 30 years. When he finally did he lost and lost badly. Fischer called Lasker a "coffee house player" and I tend to agree. Lasker was still playing 1860s chess 60 years later. If Morphy had lived, Lasker would have never been world champion. Keep in mind, Morphy was actually younger than Steinitz and while both were alive, most estimates rate Morphy 400-500 rating points higher than Steinitz throughout their careers. That's roughly the difference between Magnus and an IM. So Lasker's world championship would be like somebody beating a 60 year old 2300, declaring themselves world champion and refusing to play any top players for the next 30 years.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, history, ruy-lopez
---


title: Help with evaluating this position

text:
# Question
Title: Help with evaluating this position
```
rn2k2r/ppp2p2/4bn1p/2bp4/8/1B3N1P/PPP2PP1/RNB1R1K1 w Qkq - 0 1

```

I am having trouble evaluating this position, I believe the activity of the pieces is equal, besides the week h6 pawn I cannot see why white has a clear advantage

# Answer
Black has two isolated pawns (h6 and f7). The bishop on e6 is restricted by the pawn on d5, and is pinned to the king. White has a rook on the only fully open file. On the other hand, the half-open g file can potentially be used to attack White's king. White does have an advantage, but it's less than a full pawn's worth.
> 3 votes

# Answer
At first glance, I liked white but looking a little deeper I think I actually prefer black. Black has some weaknesses but I don't see any way for white to exploit those weaknesses. I like the open g-file. I know SF likes white but from a practical standpoint, I think you could win a lot of games with black.

Black has the better center with the only center pawn. Development is about equal. White's king is safer for now but black should be able to castle queenside without any problems. I would consider it about equal but I would prefer black because I think black can build a very strong attack. Stockfish could probably defend that attack but the average player doesn't defend as well as Stockfish.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, evaluation
---


title: What should be Black's next move?

text:
# Question
Title: What should be Black's next move?
In this game, the last move made by white was **Bg5** . Now it's black's turn. A software analysis shows that black is winning in this position with -2.51 evaluation. I am unable to spot the black's next best move ? Any kind of hint is appreciated !

# Answer
This isn't a deep analysis using a computer, just my 'at a glance' thoughts.

Here are my observations:

1. The pawn structure is typical for a Caro-Kann structure
2. Black is a little cramped
3. There is no forced win, so what you pick is a stylistic decision

These are the moves I would consider:

* **1...Qc7** or **1...O-O** are thematic in the Caro-Kann pawn structure
* **1...Nd5** offering a trade of dark square bishops would help relieve Black's cramped position
* **1...c5?!** is too soon, but Black would like to get this move in sometime to challenge White's space advantage
* **1...Bxf3?!**, although exchanges a bad bishop, I think this is too soon, and I would prefer to keep the pressure on the knight
> 4 votes

# Answer
This seems to be a bug in the chessboard's engine. If you look at the engine's main line, you'll see that it is bogus. After 11... h6, White will never sacrifice his bishop.
> 6 votes

# Answer
White is slightly better or at least equal. Black isn't threatening anything. Maybe there's a tactic involving playing e5 or c5 and giving white doubled f-pawns but that's not worth 2 1/2 pawns. Your engine is wrong. Analyze it with a modern engine like SF and let us know what it says.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Analysis of a very complicated end position - why is this move leading to a draw?
I am trying to understand this position a bit better and would appreciate some help in doing so. I am black and it's my turn... (the board is flipped .. ie. black plays up and white plays down)

```
[FEN "8/4Kp2/4p3/4k1p1/8/8/5PP1/8 b - - 0 48"]

1...f5??  {This is what I played, although it's marked as a bad move: -0.5} (1... f6! {ok move -8}) (1... Kf5!! {best move -17}) *

```

I played 48...f5, which dropped my score from -17 to -0.6, basically throwing a winning situation away.

I have been reviewing this position for quite some time now but can't figure out exactly why this move was wrong. There are only 2 winning moves from here: Kf5 or f6. So what wrong with f5? (I assume something like opposition, but this is too complex for me to see)

Can someone please shed some light for me on the strategy involved? (thanks)

# Answer
I am not sure I can give a simple reason why this leads to a draw (though I try below), but I think there are at least clear reasons that f6 is much better; for practical purposes this should be good enough, though it is certainly also interesting to clearly understand why the position after f5 is drawn.

The specifics that make this position winning is that

1. you have an active king and a pawn majority
2. the opposing king is off-side; it should be in front of your pawns, not behind them in order to block their advance and enter a drawn K+P vs K endgame

Of course the main plan for winning such a position is the creation of a passed pawn. At the same time, you must strive to keep the opposing king out of the game as much as possible.

Now, the prime candidate for becoming a passed pawn is the e-pawn, since it is the only pawn that is not opposed by a pawn. To achieve this you have to push the candidate to the front since it is the only pawn that cannot be blocked by the opposing pawns. Unfortunately, in this case your king blocks that pawn, thus you have to move the king out of the way.

It certainly requires some good calculation or a solid understanding of such situations to play Kf5, which parts with the f-pawn. However, f6 is a clear candidate; afterwards you can easily move your king to f5 without dropping a pawn and continue to advance the e-pawn. At the same time Black will have trouble to return into the game; all he can do is to advance along-side with the e-pawn (after Kf5 and taking the g-pawn Black takes even longer to return to the came). Though it may not be easy to see that f6 is indeed winning, I think it rather easy to see that it is clearly one of the best tries.

After f5, however, it is not easy anymore to move your king away. If you move to the d-file, White's king advances to f6, forcing the advance of your g-pawn and thus White's king returns back to the game with tempo. On the other hand, moving to other squares drops the e-pawn, and thus certainly draws. These options are clearly inferior, though again it may again not be obvious that it is enough for the Black king to actually take up some serious defensive tasks in the first line.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The reason why you lose the winning edge is, as it almost always is, because of tempi:

```
[fen "8/4Kp2/4p3/4k1p1/8/8/5PP1/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...f5? 2.Kf7, g4 3.g3!, Kd6 4. Kg6! (4.Kf6?, Kd5 5. Kg6, Ke4! 6.Kf6,  e5 7.Kg5, Kf3 {and black picks up the f2 pawn.})
4...Kd5 5. Kf6 {and black cannot advance without giving up a vital pawn.}

```

Let's look at what happens when playing ...f6 first:

```
[fen "8/4Kp2/4p3/4k1p1/8/8/5PP1/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...f6 2.Kf7, g4 3.g3 (3. Kg6, f5! 4. Kf7, {For 4. g3, see the variations above; it's a transposition.} 4...f4 {and white is helpless against the black pawns.})
3...Kf5 4.Ke7, e5 5.Kf7 (5.Kd6, Ke4! 6. Ke6, f5 {and white is toast.})

5...e4 6.Ke7 (6.Kg7, Kg5!) 6...Ke5! {denying the white king access to the action.} 7.Kf7, f5 8. Kg6, f4 {and black breaks through.}

```

So basically what happens is that ...f6 loses a tempo on purpose, to deny white the blockading idea available after ...f5. It's not easy to see immediately, but it's worth noting, as ideas like manipulating tempi in pawn endgames is the key to playing them successfully. Remember this in your next pawn endgame, as it could gain you an extra half point.

So, what about ...Kf5? It also wins:

```
[fen "8/4Kp2/4p3/4k1p1/8/8/5PP1/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...Kf5 2. Kxf7 (2.f3, g4!? 3. Kxf7, e5 4. Kg7 (4.Ke7, g3! 5. Kd6, e4 {and black breaks through.}) 4...Kf4! 5.Kf6, g3! 6. Kg6, Ke3! {and black picks up g2 and the victory.}) 2...e5 3.Ke7, e4! (3...g4? 4.g3!, e4 5.Kf7!, e3 6.fxe3, Ke4 7.Kf6, Kxe3? 8.Kg5, Kf3 9.Kh4 {and white wins. Oops!})
4.Kd6, g4 5.Kd5, g3 {and black wins.}

```

These lines aren't exhaustive, but I think that I've outlined the most important variations.

With this I hope that I've been able to show that in pawn endgames, general principles only serve to guide you. You must calculate precisely!
> 6 votes

# Answer
So I ran through this and it is certainly difficult to see. But with the moves Kf5 or f6, it looks like the goal is to turn your e-pawn into a passed pawn while keeping it protected with your king. When you play f5 you can no longer protect your e-pawn with your king while simultaneously removing the white f-pawn.

Maybe there is some general theory that would quickly lead you to this conclusion without using an engine, but I am not aware of this.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Just speaking on general principles (I didn't analyze the specific position):

#1- In order to create a passed pawn the e pawn is the one that needs to advance because it's the unopposed pawn. You can't create a passed pawn if you're running two pawns against two pawns on the same files. Obviously, you can't do that right now but that needs to be your main goal.

#2- White's king is kind of annoying where he's at. If you could force him to move his king on the next move you would have a completely won game. You can kind of do that though. By playing f6 instead of f5 you're holding back a tempo and looking to push white back by forcing him into zugzwang.

These types of ideas are common in king,pawn endgames. If you don't understand what I'm saying, get a good endgame book and learn the chapters that talk about the opposition and triangulation etc. These are very basic endgames.

The idea of wasting a tempo to force your opponent to move and thus give yourself the opposition is a very common theme in these types of endgames. If you don't understand that and you're over about 1200 then your endgame is pretty weak.

I'm not trying to insult anybody but you should learn basic endgames before you ever play a full game. There's way too many players who don't have the slightest idea what to do in the endgame.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, pawn-endgame
---


# Question
Title: What is the idea behind the Sicilian Flohr Variation?
```
 [FEN ""]
 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Qc7

```

Is this merely a transpositional device to avoid some lines of the Taimanov Sicilian, or does it have any independent ideas?

# Answer
> 2 votes
It is an interesting move order commented by Antonio Pavlidis in his book "The Sicilian Taimanov" (2019). This deviation from the typical Taimanov order (i.e. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6) **avoids White's dangerous line 5. Nb5**, which after 5... d6 can be followed by 6. c4 Maroczy-style, or by very concrete play with 6. Bf4 or 6. Bg5. The main drawback with the OP order is that **White can play 3. Bb5 transposing to a Rossolimo**, which is a super theoretical, trendy line. Antonio concludes that it is a good option if you can anticipate your opponent's prep (i.e. the Rossolimo is not in their repertoire, plus they are confident with the 5. Nb5 line).

# Answer
> 1 votes
A few thoughts on this, even though I do not play it.

I don't like it. I play the Sicilian Najdorf.

```
 [FEN ""]
 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Qc7

```

Since the pawn is still on e7, the d6 square is protected from Nd4-b5-d6.

This allows Black to still consider a g7-g6, Bf8-g7 setup.

Playing Qd8-c7 is flexible, it can transition into different setups.

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, minor-variations
---


title: Deep and accurate analysis required

text:
# Question
Title: Deep and accurate analysis required
In order to resurrect an old line in the Scandinavian defense I am forced to accept doubled pawns at the side where I have pawn majority. To make things even worse, I reach queenless middlegame, and the endgame is not so far away! Still, my engine gives equality or small disadvantage in sample lines.

I don't have hardware strong enough for this type of analysis, so I ask for deep analysis of the following position:

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp2ppp/8/5p2/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1B2RK1 w kq - 0 1"]

```

I really believe that Black might be able to hold this position with equal chances, but I need strong engine analyzing on strong hardware. If required, break the analysis into sub-variations and post them one by one. You could start with `1.Ng5` as I consider it the strongest move. **Move `1.Nc5` can be discarded as I intend to play `1...Bxc5` doubling the pawns, thus removing only advantage White has in this position.**

I can wait, there is no need to hurry as I prefer quality over speed ( this should be the part of my opening repertoire ).

Thank you for your time and efforts.

## EDIT:

Here is the way to reach this position, added on request by member *bof* :

```
[Title "Scandinavian defense"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qe5+ 4.Be2 Bg4 5.d4! Bxe2 6.Ngxe2 Qf5 7.O-O Nf6 $8 8.Ng3 Qa5 9.Nge4 Nxe4 10.Nxe4 e6!? 11.Qf3 Qf5 12.Qxf5 exf5

```

**Please focus on the diagramed position in your comments / answers, I do not seek help with the opening moves. They are added here just because member** *bof* **asked for them. Thank you.**

# Answer
> 2 votes
I did some analysis on it with Stockfish 5 (64 bits, SSE4.2, default parameters). I don't know how reliable these lines after the evaluation really are, better analyse a certain position again instead of trusting

First move: (Depth in plies: 32 full / 50 selective; 11 GNodes)

```
1. +/=  (0.40): 1.Ng5 f6 2.Re1+ Kd7 3.Nf3 Bd6 4.c4 Re8 5.Rd1 c6 6.g3 Na6
2. +/=  (0.32): 1.Nd2 f6 2.Nc4 Kf7 3.c3 Bd6 4.g3 Re8 5.Kg2 Nd7 6.b3 Nb6 7.Nxd6+ cxd6 8.c4 d5 9.c5 Nd7 10.Be3 Nf8 11.a4 Ne6 12.Rfe1 a5 13.Rad1 g5 14.f4 Kg6 15.Kf3 h6
3. =  (0.25): 1.Nc3 Nc6 2.Ne2 Bd6 3.c3 0-0-0 4.Re1 Rhe8 5.g3 Ne7 6.Bd2 Nd5 7.Rad1 b6 8.Nc1 f4 9.Nd3 fxg3 10.hxg3 Kb7 11.Kg2 h6 12.c4 Nf6 13.Rxe8 Rxe8 14.c5 bxc5 15.dxc5 Be7
4. =  (0.19): 1.Ng3 g6 2.Re1+ Kd7 3.c3 Na6 4.Ne2 c6 5.Bf4 Bd6 6.g3 Rhe8 7.Kg2 Nc7 8.Bxd6 Kxd6 9.Nf4 Re4 10.f3 Rxe1 11.Rxe1 Re8 12.Rxe8 Nxe8 13.Kf2 Nc7 14.Nd3 f6 15.Nf4 b6 16.c4 Ke7 17.Ke3 g5 18.Nh5
5. =  (0.01): 1.Nc5 Bxc5 2.dxc5 Na6 3.c6 bxc6 4.Re1+ Kd7 5.Bg5 f6 6.Rad1+ Kc8 7.Be3 Rd8 8.Rxd8+ Kxd8 9.Rd1+ Ke8 10.c3 c5 11.Kf1 Rb8 12.b3 Rb6 13.h4 Rd6 14.Rb1 c6 15.Ke2 Kf7 16.f3 Rd7 17.Re1 Rd8 18.Rd1 Rxd1
6. -+  (-2.32): 1.f3 fxe4 2.fxe4 Nc6 3.c3 f6 4.Bf4 Bd6 5.g3 Kd7 6.Kg2 Rae8 7.Rae1 h5 8.a4 a5 9.h3 b6 10.b3 Rhf8 11.Bd2 Kc8 12.Bf4 Kb7 13.Bxd6 cxd6 14.Kf3 Rc8 15.Ke2 Ne7 16.Kd3 Rfe8
7. -+  (-2.44): 1.Bd2 fxe4 2.Rae1 Kd7 3.Rxe4 Na6 4.d5 Bd6 5.b4 Rhe8 6.Rd4 Re2 7.Rd1 Rae8 8.a3 Be5 9.Rd3 Bf4
8. -+  (-2.48): 1.Re1 fxe4 2.f3 f6 3.Rxe4+ Kd7 4.Bf4 Bd6 5.Bxd6 cxd6 6.Rae1 Nc6 7.c3 Rhe8 8.Kf2 Rxe4 9.fxe4 Re8 10.Re2 Ne7 11.Re1 a6 12.Kf3 Nc6

```

Ng5: (Depth: 30 full / 46 selective; 3700 MNodes)

```
1. +/=  (0.38): 1...Bd6 2.Re1+ Kf8 3.c3 Nd7 4.c4 b6 5.b3 f6 6.Ne6+ Kf7 7.Bf4 Bxf4 8.Nxf4 Rhe8 9.g3 c6 10.d5 g5 11.Ne6 cxd5 12.cxd5 Rac8 13.Kg2 Nc5 14.Nxc5 Rxc5 15.d6 Rc2 16.Rad1 Rxe1 17.Rxe1 Rd2 18.Re7+
2. +/=  (0.40): 1...f6 2.Re1+ Kd7 3.Nf3 Bd6 4.c4 Re8 5.Rd1 Nc6 6.Bd2 a5 7.g3 b6 8.Kg2 Ke7 9.Rac1 g5 10.c5 bxc5 11.dxc5 Be5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Bc3 a4 14.Re1 Kf7 15.Rcd1 g4 16.Bxe5 Rxe5 17.Rxe5 fxe5
3. +/=  (0.55): 1...Bb4 2.a3 Be7 3.Re1 Nc6 4.c3 Rd8 5.b4 Rd7 6.Nf3 f6 7.Rb1 Kf7 8.Bb2 Nd8 9.Re3 Ne6 10.Rbe1 Nf4 11.c4 c6 12.g3 Ng6 13.Bc3 f4 14.R3e2 Re8 15.Kg2
4. +/=  (0.56): 1...Nc6 2.Re1+ Be7 3.c3 Rd8 4.Bf4 0-0 5.Nf3 Rd7 6.g3 f6 7.Kg2 Kf7 8.h4 Rfd8 9.Nd2 Bd6 10.Bxd6 cxd6 11.Nc4 Ne7 12.a3 Rc8 13.Ne3 Rdd8 14.c4 g6 15.b3 b6 16.d5 Re8 17.a4 a5
5. +/=  (0.56): 1...Be7 2.Re1 Nc6 3.c3 Rd8 4.Bf4 0-0 5.Nf3 Rd7 6.g3 f6 7.Kg2 Kf7 8.h4 Rfd8 9.Nd2 Bd6 10.Bxd6 cxd6 11.Nc4 Ne7 12.a3 Rc8 13.Ne3 Rdd8 14.c4 g6 15.b3 b6 16.d5 Re8 17.a4 a5
6. +/=  (0.59): 1...Na6 2.Re1+ Be7 3.c4 Kf8 4.Nf3 f6 5.d5 Kf7 6.Nd4 g6 7.Be3 Bd6 8.g3 Nc5 9.Rad1 Rhe8 10.Kg2 h5 11.a3 a5 12.Nb5 Rac8 13.b4 axb4 14.axb4 Ne4 15.c5 Be5
7. +/-  (0.75): 1...h6 2.Nf3 Bd6 3.Re1+ Kf8 4.c4 Nd7 5.Bd2 g6 6.Bc3 Be7 7.Rad1 Bf6 8.Ne5 Rd8 9.f4 Kg7 10.b3 h5 11.Kf2 a6 12.h3 b6 13.Kf3 a5 14.g3 h4 15.g4 fxg4+ 16.Kxg4
8. +/-  (0.79): 1...Nd7 2.Re1+ Be7 3.Bf4 Kf8 4.Re2 h6 5.Nf3 Bd6 6.Bxd6+ cxd6 7.Rae1 g6 8.Re7 Rd8 9.Nd2 b5 10.Nb3 Kg7 11.Na5 Nf6 12.Rxa7 Rde8 13.Kf1 Rxe1+ 14.Kxe1 Re8+ 15.Kd2

```

Nd2: (Depth: 30 full / 46 selective; 8100 MNodes)

```
1. +/=  (0.31): 1...f6 2.Nc4 Kf7 3.g3 Bd6 4.Kg2 Nc6 5.c3 a6 6.a4 Rhe8 7.b3 h5 8.Bd2 b5 9.Nxd6+ cxd6 10.Bf4 d5 11.axb5 axb5 12.Bd6 g5 13.Rfd1 Kg6 14.Bc5 Na5 15.Rdb1 Nc6 16.Re1 Rxe1 17.Rxa8
2. +/=  (0.34): 1...Nc6 2.Re1+ Kd7 3.Nf3 Bd6 4.c4 Rhe8 5.Rd1 a5 6.Bd2 g6 7.g3 Bb4 8.Be3 Bf8 9.Kg2 Bg7 10.a4 b6 11.d5 Nb4 12.Bd4 Bxd4 13.Nxd4 Re4 14.Rab1 Rae8 15.b3 h5 16.h3
3. +/=  (0.34): 1...Bd6 2.Re1+ Kd7 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.c4 Rhe8 5.Rd1 a5 6.Bd2 g6 7.g3 Bb4 8.Be3 Bf8 9.Kg2 Bg7 10.a4 b6 11.d5 Nb4 12.Bd4 Bxd4 13.Nxd4 Re4 14.Rab1 Rae8 15.b3 h5 16.h3
4. +/=  (0.41): 1...Na6 2.c3 Bd6 3.Re1+ Kd7 4.Nc4 Rhe8 5.Be3 c6 6.g3 Nc7 7.Nxd6 Kxd6 8.c4 f6 9.Kg2 h6 10.b3 b5 11.h4 bxc4 12.bxc4 Rab8 13.Bf4+ Kd7 14.Rxe8 Rxe8 15.Rb1 g5 16.hxg5 hxg5 17.Be3
5. +/=  (0.41): 1...b6 2.Re1+ Kd7 3.Nf3 Bd6 4.c4 Na6 5.a3 Rhe8 6.Be3 f6 7.g3 c6 8.h4 Nc7
6. +/=  (0.42): 1...Be7 2.c3 Nc6 3.g3 0-0-0 4.a4 Rhe8 5.Nc4 Bf6 6.Kg2 Ne7 7.Bd2 Nd5 8.Rfe1 Kd7 9.Kf3 h6 10.h4 a6 11.Bf4 Nxf4 12.Kxf4 g6 13.Rxe8 Rxe8 14.Ne3 Kc6 15.a5
7. +/=  (0.43): 1...Bb4 2.c3 Bd6 3.g3 Nc6 4.Kg2 f6 5.Nc4 Kf7 6.a4 a6 7.Re1 Rhe8 8.Be3 Rad8 9.b3 Ne7 10.Rad1 Nd5 11.Nxd6+ cxd6 12.Bd2 Ne7 13.c4 Nc6 14.Bc3 Rxe1 15.Rxe1 Re8 16.Rxe8 Kxe8
8. +/=  (0.48): 1...Rg8 2.Re1+ Kd7 3.a3 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Be3 Nc6 6.g3 h6 7.Rab1 Rae8 8.h4 g5 9.hxg5 hxg5 10.Bxg5 Nxd4 11.Red1 Kc8 12.Nxd4 Bxd4 13.Rxd4 Rxg5 14.Rbd1 b6 15.b4 f6 16.Kf1

```

For validating purposes, i ran another test with Houdini 4 Pro x64 for the first move (Depth: 26 full / 61 selective; 5000 MNodes):

```
1. =  (0.22): 1.Nd2 Nc6 2.c3 Bd6 3.g3 Kd7 4.Kg2 Bae8 5.Bd1 f4 6.Nc4 fxg3 7.hxg3 h5 8.Bh1 Ne7 9.Bd2 Ng6 10.Bh3 h4 11.Bah1 hxg3 12.Bxh8 Bxh8 13.Bxh8 Nxh8 14.fxg3 Ng6 15.Kf3 Ne7 16.Nxd6 Kxd6 17.Bf4+ Kc6 18.c4 Nf5 19.Ke4
2. =  (0.21): 1.Ng3 g6 2.Be1+ Kd7 3.Nf1 Nc6 4.c3 Be8 5.Bxe8 Kxe8 6.g3 Kd7 7.Kg2 Ne7 8.Bg5 Nd5 9.Be1 Bg7 10.Kf3 h6 11.Bd2 a5 12.h3 Nf6 13.Bf4 Ne4 14.Ne3 Be8 15.Kg2
3. =  (0.18): 1.Ng5 f6 2.Be1+ Kd7 3.Ne6 Na6 4.Bf4 Be8 5.d5 g5 6.Bd2 Nc5 7.Bad1 Nxe6 8.dxe6+ Bxe6 9.Bxg5+ Bd6 10.Bxe6 Kxe6 11.Bc1 f4 12.g3 fxg3 13.hxg3 h5 14.Kg2 Kf5 15.Be3 Be8 16.Kf3 b6 17.c3 a6 18.a3 Kg6 19.a4 Kf5 20.a5 b5
4. =  (0.12): 1.Nc3 Nc6 2.Be1+ Kd7 3.a3 Bd6 4.Ne2 Bae8 5.Be3 Bhg8 6.h4 f6 7.b4 f4 8.Nxf4 Nxd4 9.Bxd4 Bxf4 10.c4 b6 11.g3 Bd6 12.Bed1 Ke6 13.c5 Be5 14.Bxe5 fxe5 15.Kg2 Bd8 16.Bac1 Bgf8 17.Bxd8 Bxd8 18.cxb6 cxb6 19.Bc7
5. =  (0.00): 1.Nc5 Bxc5 2.dxc5 f6 3.Bf4 Na6 4.Bad1 Bd8 5.b4 g5 6.Bxd8+ Kxd8 7.Bd2 Ke7 8.Bc3 c6 9.Be1+ Kf7 10.Bd1 Be8 11.Bd7+ Be7 12.Bd6 Be6 13.Bd7+ Be7 14.Bd6
6. -+  (-2.37): 1.f3 fxe4 2.fxe4 Nc6 3.c3 f6 4.g3 Bd6 5.Kg2 Kd7 6.Bd2 Rae8 7.Rae1 h6 8.Rf5 a6 9.Re2 Re7 10.Rf1 Rhe8 11.Rfe1 b6
7. -+  (-2.40): 1.Re1 fxe4 2.Rxe4+ Kd7 3.Be3 Nc6 4.Rd1 Bd6 5.c4 f5 6.Rh4 Be7 7.Rf4 Rhf8 8.Rf3 h6 9.g3 Rae8 10.Kg2 g5 11.h3 Rf6 12.Bd2 Bf8 13.Bc3 f4 14.a3 Re2 15.d5 Ne5
8. -+  (-2.45): 1.Bd2 fxe4 2.Rae1 f5 3.f3 Nc6 4.c3 e3 5.Bxe3 Kf7 6.Rf2 Bd6 7.Rfe2 Rae8 8.g3 h5 9.Kg2 h4 10.f4 Re4 11.Kf3 Ne7 12.Bd2 Rxe2 13.Rxe2 b5 14.b3 a6 15.c4 Nc6 16.Bc3 hxg3 17.hxg3 Bb4 18.cxb5 axb5 19.Bb2 Rd8 20.Rc2

```

There are some differences, but they agree with the fact, that Nc5 is the worst reply.

Here is a game played by Stockfish vs itself in a 40 minutes per 40 moves time control in this position on a Core i7-3770: (the {0.42/27 41} in the PGN denote evaluation, depth and time for the move)

```
rn2kb1r/ppp2ppp/8/5p2/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1B2RK1 w kq - 0 1

1. Ng5 {0.42/27 41} f6 {0.33/29 28} 2. Re1+ {0.39/29 64} Kd7 {0.32/31 28} 3.
Nf3 {0.39/31 28} Bd6 {0.33/30 29} 4. c4 {0.35/30 39} Re8 {0.34/31 29} 5. Rd1 {
0.34/31 29} a5 {0.43/30 142} 6. g3 {0.36/32 188} Nc6 {0.36/32 29} 7. Bd2 {0.29/
31 313} b6 {0.29/31 29 (g6)} 8. Kg2 {0.18/30 133 (c5)} Ke7 {0.25/30 41} 9. b3 {
0.26/32 23} Kf7 {0.29/33 99} 10. d5 {0.18/33 78} Nb4 {0.17/35 41} 11. Bc3 {0.
17/35 24} Re2 {0.17/34 30} 12. Nd4 {0.09/34 39} Rxa2 {0.10/36 45} 13. Nxf5 {0.
10/36 24} Bf8 {0.10/35 31} 14. Rxa2 {0.06/33 94} Nxa2 {0.17/35 58} 15. Bb2 {0.
15/35 40} Nb4 {0.15/35 32} 16. Nd4 {0.15/33 36} Bc5 {0.12/34 33} 17. Kf3 {0.12/
34 57} Bxd4 {0.19/35 97} 18. Bxd4 {0.19/37 24} Ke7 {0.13/34 41 (a4)} 19. Ke2 {
0.27/32 59 (Te1+)} Kd6 {0.25/36 34} 20. Kd2 {0.29/36 25} Re8 {0.25/38 108} 21.
Be3 {0.31/40 25} Na6 {0.31/39 34} 22. Re1 {0.27/35 26} Kd7 {0.25/35 35} 23. Ra1
{0.24/34 40} Kc8 {0.17/36 50} 24. Rd1 {0.13/36 97} Kb7 {0.14/38 37} 25. Kc3 {
0.20/37 47} c6 {0.20/37 38} 26. h4 {0.22/36 116} g6 {0.15/36 78 (Sb4)} 27. d6 {
0.15/34 45} Nb8 {0.19/38 92} 28. d7 {0.19/38 24} Rd8 {0.19/38 39} 29. Rd6 {0.
19/37 25} Nxd7 {0.28/36 78} 30. Kc2 {0.26/37 84} Kc7 {0.20/37 41} 31. Re6 {0.
18/33 34 (Lf4)} Rh8 {0.22/37 96} 32. Kb2 {0.22/37 26} h5 {0.21/35 57} 33. Bf4+
{0.21/36 27} Kb7 {0.20/39 43} 34. Re7 {0.21/40 107} Kc8 {0.21/40 46} 35. Rg7 {
0.21/39 25} Ne5 {0.15/38 50} 36. Bxe5 {0.05/35 50} fxe5 {0.10/39 95} 37. Rxg6 {
0.10/39 29} Kc7 {0.10/38 57} 38. Rf6 {0.05/38 77} e4 {0.03/39 68} 39. Rf5 {0.
00/38 87} Kd6 {0.00/41 87} 40. Kc3 {0.00/41 33} Ke6 {0.00/42 146} 41. Rg5 {0.
00/42 48} 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
...and I'll give you some very superficial knowledge off the top of my head based on a quick glance at the position.

1. This is very much like a Ruy exchange in that white can create a passed pawn on the queenside but black can't on the kingside. Unlike the Ruy exchange though black doesn't have the two bishops as compensation.
2. That e-file should be a little scary for black. Black is behind in development and it could turn bad very quickly if black doesn't play accurately.

White is clearly better here. Black is hoping for a draw. White has the better position AND the initiative. White can play pretty much anything and reach a decent position but black really needs to play accurately just to reach a draw.

---
Tags: analysis, endgame
---


# Question
Title: Who is/was the lowest ranked World Chess Champion?
Boris Gelfand has just won the 7th of 12 games (all previous drawn) in the FIDE World Championship match against the current holder of the title Viswanathan Anand. This puts him in a good position to take the title. Gelfand is currently ranked 20th in the world; over the past decade he has averaged approximately 13th in the world (FIDE rankings).

If Gelfand does win, will his low ranking be without precedent or is this a common match-play aberration? Who has been the lowest ranked on the FIDE rankings list at the time of taking the title of World Chess Champion?

# Answer
> 12 votes
To answer my own question, **numbers shown in bold below are the FIDE ranking of the player at the time they were crowned World Champion**. Before 1964 there was no ranking system as far as I know. Ranking taken from FIDE rankings site and this chess USA education webpage.

**Undisputed world champions 1886–1993**
?? Wilhelm Steinitz (1886–1894)
?? Emanuel Lasker (1894–1921)
?? José Raúl Capablanca (1921–1927)
?? Alexander Alekhine (1927–1935, 1937–1946)
?? Max Euwe (1935–1937)
?? Mikhail Botvinnik (1948–1957, 1958–1960, 1961–1963)
?? Vasily Smyslov (1957–1958)
?? Mikhail Tal (1960–1961)
**01** Tigran Petrosian (1963–1969) (first unofficial rankings list 1964)
**02** Boris Spassky (1969–1972)
**01** Bobby Fischer (1972–1975)
**02** Anatoly Karpov (1975–1985)
**02** Garry Kasparov (1985–1993)

**Classical (PCA/Braingames) world champions 1993–2006**
**01** Garry Kasparov (1993–2000)
**03** Vladimir Kramnik (2000–2006)

**FIDE world champions 1993–2006**
**02** Anatoly Karpov (1993–1999)
**44** Alexander Khalifman (1999–2000)
**02** Viswanathan Anand (2000–2002)
**07** Ruslan Ponomariov (2002–2004)
**54** Rustam Kasimdzhanov (2004–2005)
**03** Veselin Topalov (2005–2006)

**Undisputed world champions 2006–present**
**09** Vladimir Kramnik (2006–2007)
**01** Viswanathan Anand (2007–present)

**Next undisputed world champion ?**
**04** Viswanathan Anand
**20** Boris Gelfand

And as I write this Anand has won game 8.

Also, an interesting quote from Alexander Khalifman responding to his very low ranking at the time of his crowning FIDE world champion in 1999:

> "Rating systems work perfectly for players who play only in round robin closed events. I think most of them are overrated. Organizers invite the same people over and over because they have the same rating and their rating stays high."

Of course he would say that but perhaps some truth there.

# Answer
> 9 votes
According to this page, the weakest world champions would be Euwe and Steinitz. The list is old, but we've had nothing but powerhouses since 1978.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It would depend entirely on how they were ranked.

I think you meant "rated" instead of "ranked" but nevertheless elo ratings are relatively recent so we can't really compare older players.

If I were to guess I would say Euwe. Nobody expected him to beat Alekhine.

---
Tags: history, world-championship, statistics
---


# Question
Title: Testing Mate Possibility Without Use of King
I would like to be able to convince myself of the possibility (or lack thereof) of mate using various piece combinations **in which the attacker doesn't use their own king**.

I'd like to approach this by playing against a strong engine. I'd need to play both the attacking and defending sides at times to get the most out of this as a learning exercise.

If I play the attacking side, I can simply voluntarily not use my king.

If I play the defending side, I can't tell the engine to voluntarily not use it's king. So, for cases where I play the defending side, I need to set up a piece configuration that makes use of the attacker's own king impossible.

So, this post addresses only the case where the engine is attacking and I am defending.

It sounds like some sort of blockade of the attacking king is needed.

The problems I keep hitting to ensure the attacking king can't enter the game are:

1. Any attacking piece used in the blockade must be immobilized (along with the attacking king)
2. Any defending piece used in the blockade must be immune from capture
3. Ideally, any defending piece used in the blockade would also be immobilized. Though I can voluntarily forego moving any defending piece that has available moves, the existence of any such moves might influence the engine's behavior.

So, this has become a learning exercise unto itself. It feels like locked, opposing pawns are key to the solution, but the above problems keep arising. I feel like I am at an impasse.

Does anybody know of a way to do this? Or is it impossible?

# Answer
Engines don't usually complain that the initial position you give them isn't legal so any tabiya for the engines immobilized king doesn't have to be legal. Nevertheless I think this tabiya is legal.

```
[fen "8/1p1p4/b1b5/1p6/1P6/KP6/PP6/8 w - - 1 1"]

```

There are two ideas:

1. The white king can't move and hence can play no part unless the structure is broken
2. The keystone is the black pawn on b5 and the backup behind the pawn is designed to make it as expensive as possible for white to try and break this down.

If the structure is too large, giving too small an area of the board for white to try and mate the black king, or the c6 bishop interferes with the engines plans then the c6 bishop and d7 pawn can be removed, so:

```
[fen "8/1p6/b7/1p6/1P6/KP6/PP6/8 w - - 1 1"]

```

If you want a fortress that works for sides, i.e. it doesn't matter if the engine is black or white so that you can play engine against engine then this should do the trick:

```
[fen "8/pp6/bp6/1p6/1P6/KP6/PP6/8 w - - 1 1"]

```

The fortress can be made more solid at the expense of becoming illegal so:

```
[fen "b7/pp6/bp6/1p6/1P6/KP6/PP6/8 w - - 1 1"]

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, checkmate, fortress
---


# Question
Title: How do you keep chess fun when your opponent constantly beats you?
How do you keep chess fun when the only person that wants to play against you beats you all the time? I am struggling to want to keep playing, because I get smashed all the time, and it is not fun anymore.

# Answer
There are many people who want to play chess with you. You can play chess online! Online sites such as chess.com and lichess.org will match you with opponents of similar rating so you should win about 50 percent of the time. Furthermore, playing online as well as studying chess will immensely improve your chess, and maybe you'll play your friend again and this time you will win!
> 46 votes

# Answer
There are lots of ways to play with a handicap in chess. One way is to give one player a starting material advantage, where the weaker player starts with an extra queen, or the stronger player replaces their queen with a bishop/rook, or starts with some of their pawns missing - anything that weakens one player's starting position can be used to even the odds. Another means of handicapping can be used in timed games, where the stronger player has a shorter clock than the weaker one, so can spend less time thinking about their moves.
> 39 votes

# Answer
If you can change your attitude from this being a competition that you are "losing" to this being a tutorial, that should help a lot. Every time you play a game, you get more famailiar with lines and their responses. Consider each move to be a question (what sort of responses are this to this move?) rather than a challenge.
> 20 votes

# Answer
In regular tournaments both players write the moves down and play with clocks to make sure both players have the same amount of time for their moves. It is normal after the game for the players to analyze the game. They can do this easily because they have written the moves down. When I lose in a tournament I almost always ask my opponent if they would like to go over the game with me. Even if I "got smashed" this makes it much more interesting for me and I always learn something. Most opponents are friendly and helpful and will agree to do this.

To make the games more even the best way is to use the clocks. Start by giving both players 5 minutes each on the clocks. In subsequent games the loser gets one minute more and the winner gets one minute less. If you reach 9 minutes versus 1 minute and still lose then go to 9 minutes 30 seconds vs 30 seconds, then 9 min 45 vs 15 seconds etc. Sooner or later you will come to a stage where you take it in turns to win.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Here's what I used to do while instructing the kids (usually the weaker player) in our local chess club: We would play a normal game of chess under standard rules, but the weaker player could request to swap colors at any time during the game. Like this, the stronger player gets a real challenge too. After the first switch, he's busy trying to regain the advantage he had over you a few moments ago. The weaker player trains to detect when his position gets "really bad" and he is about to get checkmated soon.

Overall, the games run for a longer time like this, which may resolve some of the frustration that you seem to experience. Have fun and continue playing!
> 9 votes

# Answer
In chess, like other sports we go through many falls to eventually find our balance and improve. Just like everyone goes through many falls before learning how to ride a bike. And then we want to be able to ride without our hands, well, that'll again take a good dozen of falls before we eventually master it, and this keeps happening at any juncture we challenge ourselves again.

These falls remain inherent to the learning process for as long as we intend to improve even further. That is to say that, even at the highest level, even the world champion, players are constantly reflecting back on each game and saying to themselves: "why did I lose this endgame?, where did I miss the win?, what went wrong in my opening?" and so on, until they eventually amend those weakpoints. So keep playing and stay focused on the game and your weak as well as strong points, and in due time you'll start beating your regular opponent as well. I'm sure the very opponent you speak of, has a friend to whom they also always lose to :), it's just a matter of perspective and realising how natural your experience is.

From another point of view, getting beat should not deter you from having fun, there's an element of purity to chess logic, a bit similar to that of learning mathematics, there is a peaceful quiet beauty to it. Think of it as there being something to learn in every game you play regardless of the outcome, shift your mindset onto better understanding the game and how to reason about it as opposed to beating a specific player.

Diversify your opponents, for example start playing online blitz/rapid games on lichess, quickly your rating will settle and your average opponent will be at the same level as you currently are, which will naturally lead to more balanced games. Like anything else, the competitive element should only be of major relevance if one intends to take the game to a professional level. Speaking of which, there's a very good related movie called "Innocent moves" or "Searching for Bobby Fischer", which you might find interesting: without spoiling, it's about a kid who discovers chess in a park and develops a strong sense of curiosity and passion for the game, who also happens to have a natural ability for it, but soon starts to have conflicting thoughts about it as soon as it becomes competitive: where it's expected of him to become the best, to beat everyone, to ceaselessly improve and to never fail, in other words they turn chess into another mindless responsibility for the kid in which he *has* to succeed as opposed to simply *playing chess for the sheer fun* of it, which should be the only point to playing any game.

Other than playing online, consider just getting into the habit of solving chess tactics where you have to find the best moves, treat it as any other puzzle game: there's no *opponent* and you'd simply be trying to get better at solving puzzles by discovering more about chess strategy and the art of coordinating your pieces in order to achieve specific objectives: checkmating, winning a piece, securing a draw, etc. The better you get at it the higher the gratification. There are various website you can start from: lichess, chesstempo, chess24.

You might also find it fun and instructive to watch chess lectures: in particular, Yasser Seirawan lectures tend to be quite fun and easy to go through, not only he provides a lot of insight and reveals a lot of the reasoning that goes into each move of a chosen game, he complements with a lot of lighter moments with his fun anecdotes. For example, his coverage of one of the 1972 Spassky-Fischer games, or the famous miniature games, ... there are many to choose from.
> 8 votes

# Answer
This question transcends chess I think.

In any game/sport, there are people who are better than you and those that are worse. You can learn a lot by losing, way more than you can learn by winning against easy opponents.

Analyze your games. Ask why your opponent made moves he made that you didn't see when you were playing with them. Get better.

My local chess club is small and I am the strongest of the bunch. It's much less fun to win all the time and learn nothing from it. Losing and learning from those losses is a quality problem to have.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Honestly, it is not fun at all if you feel you can and will never win. Losing sometimes is fine, but losing all the time is extremely frustrating.

I think you can make it more fun by doing a few things:

**1. Make it a goal to improve your chess.** Solving tactics puzzles can be fun and feel rewarding to solve. They also improve your chess. If you improve, you can reach the point where you are able to win sometimes against your opponent. It is much more fun to play chess when you feel you have a chance to win. You can improve a lot by learning to see simple tactics quickly and by being mindful of undefended pieces (yours and your opponent's).

**2. Go over your games with your opponent.** This will give you some perspective that will help you understand where you are making mistakes. You may find that you make the same sort of mistakes often. You can identify the issues and know where you need to focus to improve. In this way it plays into point 1 by helping you improve. It also gives you a chance to enjoy a chess activity with your opponent without feeling the stress of making a mistake like in a game. You can walk through the game and discuss what-ifs and even play them out a bit. You sort of turn chess into a cooperative game for a time when you are walking through a game together.

**3. Play a larger variety of opponents.** You can play online at various websites against players of similar skill. The rating system is great because you can be matched with an opponent that you can beat, but who can also potentially beat you. I find that this tension makes chess much more fun. This will give you other exposure to chess where you feel you can win. It may make you feel less frustrated playing against a player you are not likely to beat. You won't feel that you lose every game anymore so it can be easier to brush off those loses.
> 5 votes

# Answer
It depends on what you want with chess.

If you’re willing to play chess to be able to win, you’re in for a huge disappointment.

Let me take the example of Nim, which is a simpler game. You learn the rules, and start to play and have fun. Until you meet somebody who knows the true structure of the game, and the invisible goal to pursue (enforcing the binary parity of stacks) They start to smash you every time you play with them, and you don’t understand why.

Chess is like that, but with more layers of understanding. You learn the rules, you play, until you play against someone who counts attacks and defenses on pieces better than you, and they start gaining material advantage over you at every game. If they care to explain it to you, you start to see something invisible that is more interesting, and you may get better, even starting not to lose so many pieces so sillily.

Then you meet someone else who knows about how pawns play against each other in the endgame, once the queens are no more on the board, and they start exchanging all the pieces and you end up with a shattered pawn structure at every game, and their king being centralized sooner than yours, and you don’t understand how they can promote to queen every time and you lose. If they care to explain it to you, you may get better, but this requires time, thinking and dedication.

Or maybe you meet someone who read Nimzovitch’s "My system" and you end up having your opponent’s rooks slaughter your pawn line at every game... et cetera.

In the end, someone who is better than you has learned to see invisible things in the game that you don’t see yet.

Now, do you want play chess to understand the game and what it is made of? Or do you want to play just for fun? Both are OK. There are people who play for the former, some for the latter, some for both. Fun will be there if your opponent can adapt to your level and can teach you. I would advise you to walk away from a person whose only aim is winning.

Fun is slowly disappearing from high-level chess, as Aleksandra Kosteniuk puts it forward. A chess game will be won by the one who could, during training, mine a better acute line of play from a commonly played line. Less and less things are unknown about chess. Kosteniuk advocates for playing Chess360. That may be a lead for you.

I’d advise you to try to play online, with people who are about your level. Try also other variations of chess, maybe fairy chess, Chess360, or others.
> 3 votes

# Answer
It may be hard to accept, but losing is the best way to learn and improve. Think of each game as a lesson. The one-time world champion Jose Capablanca said you had to lose 10,000 games to learn chess. You should also record your games and go over them later to see what you did wrong and how you could have improved upon your play. Having a stronger player look at them is also a good idea. Studying annotated master games is also recommended. And don't take your losses so seriously. They are not a measure of your worth. They just show that you have more to learn. Chess is not a quick study. If you want to see your progress, you must play other players too. I'm sure there are some at your skill level. You can even do that online if necessary. Be sure to start with slower games though, not speed chess. You need time to think and make plans. Unless you are one of the few who are professional players, chess is just a game. It has many pleasures. Enjoy it! I have played since 1948 (I'm 83), and although I went through periods of losses as you are doing, I persevered and have never regretted it. Just playing can be fun and intellectually satisfying. Think of it as problem solving. In fact working on problems in itself can be fun as well as educational. Chess has been one of the enduring joys of my life. Don't give up on it.
> 3 votes

# Answer
If the rating difference is large (say, 400+ points), then you probably aren't going to beat them much so odds games and playing other players seem like the best idea.

However, if you are closer in rating you should stand a decent chance of winning so in that case I would say look for opening ideas, try to improve overall and analyze each game.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I noticed one thing playing chess: I adjust my level to my opponent's level.

If I play against a weak player, I play weak too.

Against a strong player I play better.

I don't know what the reason for this is, maybe because I lose interest playing against a weak opponent.

So, I prefer to play against strong players even if I lose.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Sir, when you lose you learn many new lines, variations, tactics etc. and improve your database of knowledge which definitely helps to beat others in the game.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Don't play with that opponent :)

That or ask for piece/clock odds, but they'd have to agree.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I began playing chess in school in 7th grade and lost my first game in four moves. For the first year and one half I didn't win a single game against anyone. That brings us to the middle of my 8th grade year. We had a chess ladder and I wanted to be on the 10th spot (of 10 total). I was due to challenge the 10th spot that day but my opponent was home ill from school and did not show. We had a rule you could challenge up to two spots up on the ladder and the person holding the 9th spot was there that night. I challenged him and won. Since then I climbed the ladder to the 1st spot.

I'm now 45 years old but I can tell you I am grateful for that 1 1/2 year of losses and I am grateful I didn't give up. I learned that there must be more to chess than winning and losing. That, or I'm a glutton for punishment. I do believe that this story adds credence to Garry Kasparov's quote: "Current success is the greatest enemy of future success." You may be losing repeatedly but I can guarantee you that you are storing up valuable lessons along the way. Hopefully, you too, will score your first victory against this opponent and it will be the change in momentum and the gain in confidence needed to start off a series of wins and your story might help encourage others in the same boat.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I think that the only way out of this situation is to seriously work at improving your chess, and possibly start beating him from time to time.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I suggest to put the fun in the analysis afterwards.

To analyze every game with the fellow player.

Have fun in the analysis.

The game has three possible outcomes and they are all possible.

Your experience of the loss depends on what you identify yourself with.

If you are there to learn and to analyze, then the game is a process that gets you there.

Peace,

Rauan
> 0 votes

# Answer
Read a book and get better.

It's like basketball. You want to compete with the best? Get good.

Read My System by Nimzowitsch.
> -2 votes

---
Tags: learning, psychology, etiquette
---


# Question
Title: In Hand and Brain chess, is the stronger player generally preferred to be the hand or the brain?
Exactly what it says on the tin, as the British say:

> In Hand and Brain chess, is the stronger player generally preferred to be the hand or the brain?

And secondarily:

> Is the answer to the previous question affected at all by the particular relative strengths of the players (as in, is the answer for a team involving Magnus Carlsen and I (probably around 1200) substantially different than that for team involving a 1600 and an 1800)?

I can think of good reasons for both: the stronger player being the hand might be nice because they could select the best move under some constraints, and thus only very rarely make an outright blunder (generally, the only way they could play an outright blunder (assuming they're strong enough to pretty reliably avoid blunders) would be is a piece was chosen that had NO good moves, which I think is probably pretty rare). On the other hand, a stronger player being the brain might be preferred, as they could narrow down a decision tree for the lesser player in the hopes that the best move might become easier to see without such a large tree to analyze.

To be clear, Hand and Brain chess is a type of team chess in which two players play each side. One (the "Brain") is only allowed to pick a piece type to be moved, and the other (the "Hand") must move that piece type without knowledge of what the first player intended. For example, if the "Brain" says "pawn", then the "Hand" must move one of the pawns. If the "Brain" says "king", then the "Hand" must move the king (includes castling).

# Answer
Not a definitive answer, but I'm posting my comment based on the upvotes it received.

**It depends.** GMs have different opinions.

GM Hikaru Nakamura has said it really depends on the situation. Additionally, he has commented that when the Brain, he often suggests moves that aren't correct because he is factoring in the likely Hand response to his move.

GM Aman Hambleton stated the stronger ELO player should be the Hand generally because they will find good moves in most cases, and be able to identify a plan for a position much easier.
> 12 votes

# Answer
The following is just my personal take on this, based on never having played hand-brain chess and on my extremely limited understanding of chess as a very weak player (chess.com ~1300 blitz, maybe ~1400 on a good day in classical). So take this with a grain of salt.

I would think that if both players are relatively strong but one is clearly stronger (say an IM and a GM), the weaker of the two should be the hand and the stronger the brain. This is because the GM can likely trust that the IM would make the right move when given the piece to move. The IM would have a good enough understanding of the position to make the best move of the chosen piece.

If one player is head and shoulders above the other, say someone like me and a strong rated player, then the weaker player should probably be the brain. I figure if I tell the strong player to move a piece, they'll manage to make the best of it. If I am the hand, I am more likely to make a mistake even if the stronger player gives me the right piece while if they are the hand, they would have a better chance of finding a good move even if I don't find the *best* move and suggest the *best* piece.

If both players are relatively weak, I expect it makes no difference at all who is hand and who is brain.
> 11 votes

# Answer
According to an experiment done on computers, it is preferable for the stronger team member to handle the `hand`.
> 4 votes

# Answer
(Note 1: A little similar to terdon's answer but with 3 stages in mind.)

(Note 2: I got so mixed up with hand/brain. I prefer terminology move/piece. whatever. Anyway, I might've mistakenly mixed up hand/brain below even after proofreading.)

---

I thought of chess/chess960 in terms of its 3 stages. Working backwards, I came up with the idea:

> **Brain** stronger means advantage in **opening or middlegame**, but **hand** stronger means advantage in the **endgame**.

Part I. Positive Part I (Here positive/normative is like factual/argumentative.)

1. If you reach the **endgame**, then I think it's better if the stronger player was chosen to be **hand**.
2. Consider pawn endgames. The only possible things the hand could say are 'king' and 'pawn'.
3. Sometimes one should make a king move instead of a pawn move or vice-versa. However, very often it's obvious which one of king or pawn move, but it's long to calculate which move to make with the king/pawn to make. So, if one is a lot stronger, then we'd want to the stronger to be able to calculate it correctly as hand because otherwise the stronger's calculation ability is wasted on the obvious choices in the endgame.
4. Sometimes it's not obvious which to move between pawn or king, but a priori this is 50/50. So, if hand is stronger, then assuming the brain is *good enough* to correctly calculate that in a certain pawn endgame which of king or pawn to move, then all we need do is let the hand carry the team by converting the winning endgame. (referred to in (9)).
5. **Another way to think of this is considering Samay Raina's dice chess**/chess960 (eg this): If 2 people play dice chess and somehow reach a pawn endgame, then it pretty much becomes normal chess/chess960 (because we roll until legal move). Basically, the fewer distinct pieces (I kind of assume that 'fewer distinct pieces' is synonymous to 'closer to endgame') in a game of dice chess/chess960 or hand and brain chess/chess960, then I think the closer we are to real chess/chess960.

Part II. Positive Part II

6. With Part I in mind: perhaps a certain team may choose as a strategy for the stronger player to be hand with the idea that 'if we get to endgame, then we will have an advantage.' Conversely/Obversely(/grammar?), the other team might pick the stronger player to be the **brain** hoping to get an advantage in the **opening or middlegame**.
7. What I understand here: As compared to the endgame, the opening or middlegame has a lot of distinct pieces, so it's more of **which piece (brain)** to move and less of **which move (hand)** to make with a given piece.

* 7.1. Eg for middlegame: load up some puzzle on lichess or chesstempo where you just got a piece captured and it's obvious you have to recapture but then you're not sure whether to retake a capture with knight, pawn or bishop. Let the stronger as brain calculate which piece and then let the weaker as hand do the obvious move given the piece told. I don't believe endgames are really like this though. I think of pawn endgames where you have to choose between retaking with, say, either or your f or your d pawn. Here, we want to let the weaker as hand to say the obvious piece and then let the stronger as brain to calculate which of the 2 pawns to recapture with. But of course choosing between 2 pawns can happen in opening or middlegame (see (11)).
* 7.2. Eg for opening: Well if brain says knight for the 1st move, then it's obviously going to be N(c/f)(3/6), so the hand doesn't really have to calculate here. It seems that generally there aren't going to be that much choices with pieces anyway like if hand previously played (g/b)(3/6) and brain says bishop, then perhaps brain means fianchetto.

Part III. Normative Part I

8. Ideally, the **weaker as brain would be good enough to get through the opening and middlegame so that the stronger as hand could calculate for the endgame**. If the weaker isn't good enough, then I guess let stronger be the brain. So **for stronger as (not that much)/(that much) stronger, try stronger as, resp, brain/hand**.

* 8.1. For example, let's say we have teams of (1800,1400) and (2800,900). I think we'd want (1800,1400)=(hand,brain) but then (2800,900)=(brain,hand). Re the (2800,900)=(brain,hand): otherwise, the 2800 strength is wasted if the 900 can't figure out, say, if we should develop or castle. Forget endgame if you're not even going to make it past the middlegame or even the opening. I think we want to use the 2800 strength to get an advantage in middlegame or even opening. In the case of develop or castle, if the 2800 brain says 'king', then I guess the 900 hand isn't just going to move the king 1 square when castling is available.
* 8.2. For example, let's say we have teams of both (1800,1400). If one team does (1800,1400)=(brain,hand) while another does (1800,1400)=(hand,brain), then there seems to be a decent chance that they can make it to endgame, where the 1800 hand will almost surely crush the 1400 hand.

9. Of course the stronger hand's advantage in the endgame depends on how few distinct pieces there are. Like if we reduce distinct pieces from 6 to 2 (eg pawn endgame), then great! But if it's 3 distinct eg rook endgame, then of course our a priori drops from 50% to 33% (see (4)).

Part IV. (Bonus) Normative Part II: Playing strategy after the hand and brain are chosen.

10. I think what happens is the team with the stronger as hand/brain is going to try as much as possible to, resp, (get)/(not get) into endgame eg, resp, (make a lot of)/(avoid) trades, in particular (to trade)/(avoid trading) queens.

* 10.1 I think this applies even if you don't adopt the above choice strategy. Say (2800,900)=(hand,brain)=(1800,1400). I guess it's not likely they'll end up in endgame assuming what I said above is correct, but if ever the (2800,900) really chooses or has to play as such, then I think they'll try to make a lot of trades or something.
* 10.1.1. However!!! The (hand,brain)=(1800,1400) team knowing this might have to adjust their playing strategy, but maybe it's still better for them to indeed choose (hand,brain)=(1800,1400).

11. Adopting the above choice strategy, I think what the (2800,900)=(brain,hand) might do is avoid situations where they have to decide, like, between 2 pawns or 2 knights to recapture and also avoid trades as much as possible (see (7.1)).

---

Maybe related: https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/36754
> 1 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: What are the most dangerous counters to 1.e4 .. 2. f4?
I have a bit of a habit of playing 1.e4 with the follow-up 2.f4 in lightning (1 0) games.

In response to 1..e5, it becomes the King's Gambit. Apparently, against 1..c5 it's known as the McDonnell Gambit and against 1..d5 it's the Williams Gambit.

I'd like to know if there are particular responses in Black's first two moves which mean that proceeding blindly with this kind of attack is a bad idea, and to slow down and play more cautiously instead?

# Answer
If you can guarantee that your opponent isn't going to play the Scandinavian (1...d5) or Alekhine's Defence (1...Nf6) then you might get away with it but either one of those replies by black is going to leave your pre-moved 2.f4 giving you a roughly one pawn disadvantage. So, not a good idea.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I don't play 1...e5 anymore but when I did I played 2...d5 (Falkbeer) following a Morphy game from back in the day.

Also, Fischer published a refutation to the entire line. You might want to look into that.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Playing `e4` followed by `f4` can be dangerous, as black can easily and most likely will play f5 or e5 and capture your pawn, and never premove e4 f4, always proceed captiously in openings. Make sure your opponent does not play Nf6 and pick up your free pawn though!
> 1 votes

# Answer
I start by answering your question.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 d5 2.f4 dxe4

```

Looks terrible for White.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 Nf6 2.f4 Nxe4

```

Might cause Black to use more time to play, e.g. after 3.Nc3.

Now, if you want to play quickly in the opening phase, there are better ways. For example 1.Nf3, 2.g3, 3.Bg2, 4.O-O.

Your King is safe and you can start building up an attack.

I think in 1+0 bullet, you want to reach a middlegame quickly and then hope your opponent blunders there. A safe king is worth a lot, because the player with an unsafe king will spend more time double checking against threats.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Black has many good responses as given by others. Against c5, I'd say f4 is a too early commitment by White. For example 2...d5 by Black and if e and d pawns get exchanged one way or another then that f pawn looks stupid, having weakened both diagonals leading to f2 (allowing tactical motifs even after a short castle), and having blocked the natural development squares for the dark bishop.

If instead White pushes e5, then Nc6 and g6 both look good. Notice f5 is also available for Black's Bisop or Knight. White's e5 wedge is often used as a tool to launch kingside attacks but it is not easy to transfer in the queenside pieces to speed up such an offensive, which should allow Black enough time to push their own agenda.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Not a lot of people play the *Alekhine defense*, especially in bullet. so not a lot of dangerous moves for Black, except **1...d5** but that is ***not*** really *dangerous* provided you do not pre-move **2.f4?!** but even then, there's a chance that your opponent also pre-moves **2...Nf6?!** to which you can respond with **3.e5!.**

Nothing comes without a price. if you want those *extra* milliseconds then you have to ***accept*** the fact that once upon a time you will get in ***trouble*** if someone plays the ***dreaded*** ***1...Nf6*** or ***1...d5***.

Best of luck!
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, gambits, kings-gambit, bullet-chess
---


title: "Premoving" in blitz over the board

text:
# Question
Title: "Premoving" in blitz over the board
I'm myself a lightning-fast blitzer, but some (Ha. All.) have better dexterity than me. Some specialists make their move even before I could hit my own clock. This is especially annoying when Fischer time rules are in action, as hitting the clock back and forward might get confusing.

Are there relevant rules and etiquette beyond §E6.2.2? ("A player must be allowed to stop his clock after making his move, even after the opponent has made his next move.") This *might* also be of relevance in time trouble.

# Answer
> 2 votes
> Are there relevant rules and etiquette beyond §E6.2.2? ("A player must be allowed to stop his clock after making his move, even after the opponent has made his next move.")

Yes, there is at least one rule in the FIDE Laws of Chess, which is related to 6.2.2 and is key:

> 1.2 The player with the light-coloured pieces (White) makes the first move, then the players move alternately, with the player with the dark-coloured pieces (Black) making the next move.
>
> 1.3 A player is said to ‘have the move’ when his opponent’s move has been ‘made’.

Another way of saying this is that every time you move your opponent also gets to move. From that derives another very important principle, particularly in blitz, which you should already be familiar with as a master level player. It is the principle of prophylaxis.

Far more important than clock handling is to always be aware of your opponent's ideas and how you can thwart their plans. This is important for two reasons:

1. There is no point in successfully planning a mate in 2 if you allow your opponent's mate in 1. The position on the board overrides the clock until one of the flags falls.
2. If you make no effort to stop your opponent's plans then they will be able to move quickly (pre-move, even if playing online). If you stop their plans then they have to stop and start thinking what to do next. This can make a big difference at standard time controls but is often a real killer at shorter time controls.

There are other general principles which are less important but also worth paying attention to.

1. Other things being not too unequal try and play on the same side of the board as the clock.
2. When very short of time try and make short moves close to the clock.
3. Practice so that you are ambidextrous with moving so that you are comfortable with the clock on either side. Perhaps have blitz sessions where the clock is always on your weak side so that you can practice with your weaker hand.

As regards when one player is allowed to move the rules are clear. Once the opponent's move has been "made" (1.3 above), which is before the move has been "completed" (clock pressed).

> 4.7 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. **The move is considered to have been made in the case of**:
>
> 4.7.1 a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand,
>
> 4.7.2 castling, when the player's hand has released the rook on the square previously crossed by the king. When the player has released the king from his hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is legal. If castling on this side is illegal, the player must make another legal move with his king (which may include castling with the other rook). If the king has no legal move, the player is free to make any legal move.
>
> 4.7.3 promotion, when the player's hand has released the new piece on the square of promotion and the pawn has been removed from the board.

Once your move has been made (your hand has left the piece in the case of moves other than castling, captures and promotions) then your opponent is free to make their move. They **do not** have to wait for you to press the clock.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> 6.2.1 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move.

Until you hit the clock, your move is not completed, and it is improper for your opponent to touch any piece, as it is not their move. Note that if the rules are followed, and each player hits their clock after making their move, with the hand that they used to make the move, then it is clear when a move "ends". If a player begins moving their piece before the other player hits their clock, then it can become quite unclear as to whether the player making the first move took their hand off the piece they moved before the other player touched their piece, and if two players both are touching pieces at the same time, this can easily lead to chaos.

---
Tags: rules, fide, etiquette
---


# Question
Title: When checkmate is impossible in a position
The laws of chess say

> **1.5.** If the position is such that neither player can possibly checkmate the opponent’s king, the game is drawn (see Article 5.2.2).
>
> **5.2.2.** The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

\[Articles 3, 4.2-4.7 basically deal with making legal moves.\]

This is interesting because it seems possibly non-obvious whether this condition applies (though presumably rare in actual games!). **Update** here is an interesting example. The game is legally a draw in this position because neither side can possibly checkmate by any sequence of moves. (The game will be a draw before white can checkmate.)

```
[fen "1k6/1P5p/BP3p2/1P6/8/8/5PKP/8 b - - 0 41"]

```

I think this must have been investigated before. I'm wondering:

(1) How computationally difficult is it to determine that **no sequence of legal moves ends in checkmate**? Is there a better algorithm than brute force?

(2) Do you know of interesting examples of positions where it is hard for a human to tell whether this condition applies?

(3) Are there any examples of historical games where this law was not followed due to players and officials not realizing the condition held? Especially interesting if the game did not end in a draw due to time expiring for one player.

Inspired by https://old.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/8ulfrt/using\_fide\_rules\_if\_white\_runs\_out\_of\_time\_in/

(edit) See also this closely related question where the accepted answer has a couple more examples where there is sufficient material to mate, but it is impossible from that position.

(edit) Essentially the same question is when a helpmate is possible; here is a closely related question.

(edit) Essentially the same question, is the dead position problem solvable?

# Answer
What you're asking goes by the name of "Dead Reckoning" in the domain of problems and retro problems.

(1) There isn't an algorithm I know of except the one mentioned by zaifrun: brute force. The reason is because you can find pretty amazing positions...

(2) Check out many problems relying on Dead Reckoning at Andrew Buchanan's website. Also there are problem databases (like this one) where you can run a search for 'DR' in the stipulation.

A concrete example I recall is this one, which I reproduce here. By Andrew Buchanan, in StrateGems 2002. White to move; what was the last move in this position? (The position is dead but the last move made must have been from a legal and live position - so it's uniquely determinable.)

```
Bb1k1b2/bKp1p1p1/1pP1P1P1/1P6/p5P1/P7/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

(3) Even grandmasters have technically made moves in a dead position! See François Labelle's page for examples.
> 11 votes

# Answer
Update on the comment by usul. The algorithm is now described here: https://chasolver.org/FUN22-full.pdf

It combines a search of variations with a dedicated mechanism for identifying blocked positions such as: https://lichess.org/hPiwD75i#97
> 2 votes

# Answer
I just learned of an engine that analyzes chess positions to determine if checkmate by one side is impossible: https://elrubiongamma.ddns.net/chess-unwinnability-analyzer/about.html

So you can solve this problem in practice by running the algorithm for both sides.

It is called the Chess Unwinnability Analyzer 2. The source code is available here: https://github.com/miguel-ambrona/D3-Chess

I don't see a description of how the algorithm works, but it seems to be roughly based on brute force. There is a faster mode that is not quite as accurate. If someone knows more about the algorithm, please expand this answer!

Here is an interesting example position linked by the author where checkmate is impossible, but it's not immediately obvious (I've put this in the question now as a motivating example): https://lichess.org/bKHPqNEw#81
> 1 votes

# Answer
Well, this is really 3 questions, not sure I am answering everything here.

But there is an 'algorithm' for this problem, but it is NP complete, that is basically brute force in essence although you can make some Optimizations. This is basically the table base generating algorithm. Of course with large number of pieces this becomes difficult to apply, even for a single position.

This Rule is basically there, so you can claim a draw in positions that are obviously drawn such as bishop and king vs lone king with no pawn and similar positions.
> -5 votes

---
Tags: rules, endgame, checkmate, chess-algorithms, dead-position
---


# Question
Title: Variant where each pawn promotes according to its file
Somewhere I came across a description of street chess played in India (I think) with a number of non-standard rules. One of them was that when a pawn reaches the 8th rank, it must promote according to its file: a/h: rook, b/g: knight, c/f: bishop, d/e: queen.

Is there a name for the variant comprising just this rule?

It would seem to be a pretty interesting, mild variant that would still be very "chess-like", but would potentially throw out the opening theory, and completely upset some endgame theory. (For instance, K vs KPP where those pawns are in the b and g files would be a draw, and passed pawns in the b, c, f or g files would be valuable, but not necessarily game-winning). And there could be interesting strategy around trying to get c or f pawns into the d or e files, even if sacrificing pieces to make it happen.

Have any serious tournaments been played in this variant?

# Answer
I have played such games with elderly retired soldiers. The variation is known as Indian chess, and apart from the promotion rule, the pawns always move one step. I am not sure if any tournaments have been played in this format. But what I remember is that fianchetto was often used. The game was slow, and pawn promotion was pretty infrequent. Having played international format, one felt that one is stuck in a dated enterprise.

You are right about the changes in the end game but one plays with what one has. The practice makes the game slower, thus, it can not have the usual international time limits as in international chess.
> 2 votes

# Answer
> Is there a name for the variant comprising just this rule?

While not "just" this rule to distinguish it from modern chess, Murray's *A History of Chess* describes this version, naming it *Hindustani Chess*. (Chapter 4, p. 81).

In that version, promotion is only possible if the player has already lost a piece "that the Pawn must adopt on reaching the eighth row". And in the case of bishops, the lost piece must be the one of the appropriate color (light square or dark square).

The game he describes also varies from modern chess in the lack of a double-step option for pawns and the lack of castling (instead the King is allowed once per game to move as a knight if he has not ever been checked so far, with a question as to whether or not it is legal to capture with such a move).
> 2 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, terminology
---


# Question
Title: Least amount of "points" to mate a berserk king
"Berserk king" is my own invention ;). It means that you play according to the normal chess rules, until a king is mated. At that point the mated king is allowed to do TWO moves, in a last attempt to save his life. The first move does not have to be legal of course: as per the definition of mate, he will still be in check after the first move. And its second move may capture the enemy king which will even win the game for the berserk king!

The question now is: make a position that can clearly be achieved with the normal rules and then show how you can mate the black king from that position such that you win even if the king goes berserk. During those last moves no pawns may promote or pieces be taken.

For example, the following position won't be accepted:

```
[FEN "7k/4K3/8/6RQ/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

because there is no way to reach this position with optimal counter play of black. Playing backwards from this position must uncheck black, and give him space that he could have come from. There is no such backwards move that will force black to go stand in the corner however.

Likewise, the following position - although berserk-mate is not acceptable:

```
[FEN "7k/4KRQ1/8/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

because it would *only* be reachable if the white queen took a black piece on its last move.

Finally, the follow isn't correct either:

```
[FEN "6k1/5R2/5K2/4R3/8/4N3/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Nf5 Kh8 2. Re8#

```

because, although black can't escape check in two moves; they can capture the white king and win! Not berserk-mate thus.

The question is, what position can you come up with that has the least number of points on the board, from which you can reach a berserk-mate without capturing pieces or promoting pawns? That is, Queen=9, Rook=5, Knight=3, Bishop=3 and pawn=1 point.

The best that I could come up with so far (although I didn't try very hard: it has to remain an achievable challenge to improve it ;) is:

```
[FEN "5B2/4KP1k/8/8/8/8/8/6R1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rg2 Kh8 2. Rg6 Kh7 3. Rf6 Kh8 4. Rh6#

```

at 9 points, where no two moves of the black king can bring it out of check or capture the white king.

EDIT:

As a fun side-note - if the position doesn't have to be reachable (but it should be in order for it to be a correct "answer" to this question) then the following would be a solution with just 3 points:

This is mostly a reaction to @DialFrost 's comment, asking if the position has to be "reachable", at which I stated that it could be an interesting question to ask for *any* position, as long as white can force berserk-mate in at least -say- 3 moves; without that white is allowed to promote (which would be a higher number of points imho).

Here is what I came up with, for that case: berserk-mate in 6 with 3 points :P

```
[FEN "1b1b1b1b/b1b1b1b1/1b1bKb1b/b1b1b1b1/1bBbkbpp/b1b1b1bp/1p1p1p1b/1n1n1nb1 w - - 1 1"]

1. Ba6 Kf3 2. Kf5 Kg2 3. Ke4 Kh1 4. Bd3 Kg2 5. Be2 Kh1 6. Bf3+

```

# Answer
8 points, acceptable?

```
[FEN "5k2/3PR3/5PP1/6K1/8/8/8/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

Wait for Kg8 (say Re6), then Re8#

EDIT: Think I'm down to 6:

```
[FEN "6k1/4P3/5PP1/6K1/3B4/8/8/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

Wait for Kh8 (say Ba1), then f7#
> 1 votes

# Answer
All combinations found below make use of the quadruple pawn structure on the top left side of the board

### 7 points (bishop)

```
[FEN "4K1k1/8/5PP1/4BPP1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Startply "25"]

1. Ke7 Kh8 2. f7#

```

### 7 points (Rook)

```
[FEN "7k/R7/5PP1/6K1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Startply "25"]

1. Ra8#

```

### 9 points (Knight combo)

```
[FEN "6k1/4K3/5PP1/4NP2/6N1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Startply "25"]

1. Nh6+ Kh8 2. Nef7#

```

### 10 points (Bishop combo)

```
[FEN "6k1/3BK3/5PP1/4BPP1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Startply "25"]

1. Be6+ Kh8 2. f7#

```

### 11 points (Queen)

```
[FEN "8/4KP1k/5P2/4Q3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Startply "25"]

1. Qg5 Kh8 2. Qh5#

```
> 1 votes

# Answer
Another one with 7 points, 2 of which are black's.

After f7+, Kh8, you matemate in the position below with f8=R##

```
[FEN "7k/4KPpp/8/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```
> 0 votes

# Answer
I didn't want to spoil it for others, but apparently I have to post REAL answers only to my own questions. Oh, well, I guess enough time passed. This was a challenge to see if people would be smart enough to add black pawns.

Here is my solution:

```
[Variant "From Position"]
[FEN "N6b/8/8/6pp/6pk/6p1/6P1/7K w - - 0 1"]

1. Nb6 Bd4 (1... Be5 2. Nd5 Bf4 3. Ne7 Bc1 4. Nf5#) 2. Nc4 Bc3 3. Nd6 Ba1 4. Nf5#

```

White can toy with black as long as he wants (postpone the mate) during which no promotions happen en no pieces are taken. But eventually black can never stop white from delivering mate, which happens to be a berserk-mate due to the fact that the black king can't capture the white knight in two moves: he is blocked by his own pawns.
> 0 votes

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


title: Did white make an illegal move here?

text:
# Question
Title: Did white make an illegal move here?
Black legally moves a pawn to the 8th rank, intended to promote it to a queen without specifying what piece this pawn should be promoted to. White immediately captured the pawn with his piece (as it is the only "reasonable" move in this position) without waiting for black to finish his promotion.

Did white make an illegal move here? Is white obligated to wait for black to complete the promotion before making the capture, even if his only reasonable move is to capture the promoted piece?

**Edit** This happened in a game without time control; so no chess clock was used.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that White has pressed the clock after doing this. (According to article 7.5.1, "An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock" so it would seem that this is a requirement for an illegal move.)

According to the FIDE Laws of Chess article 4.7:

> The move is considered to have been made in the case of...
> 4.7.3 promotion, when the player's hand has released the new piece on the square of promotion and the pawn has been removed from the board.

So the previous move has not been "made" yet. And according to article 1.2:

> The player with the light-coloured pieces (White) makes the first move, then the players move alternately...

Black has not yet "made" their move, so White is not moving alternately, which is in violation of the rules.

But not every rule violation is an illegal move. "Illegal move" has a definition:

> 3.10.1 A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.
> 3.10.2 A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9

Strictly speaking, the requirement to move alternately is *not* mentioned in 3.1 - 3.9. It's in 1.2.

But, 7.5.3 states:

> If the player presses the clock without making a move, it shall be considered and penalized as if an illegal move.

Now the question becomes: Has White made a move? I would say that no, you cannot make a move if you do not "have the move". I would therefore say that White has pressed the clock without making a move.

So, in conclusion, White shall be considered and penalized as if they had made an illegal move.

---
Tags: rules, pawn-promotion
---


# Question
Title: What is the longest possible sequence of consecutive checks without captures?
The best known answer (54) for arbitrary checking moves is given in What is the theoretical limit for the number of consecutive checks?, but I'm interested in sequences without captures. As usual, the initial position and all moves must be legal.

# Answer
> 3 votes
From the SuperProblem.net *Book of Records of Chess Composition* "Unusual Records" section, we find the known answer of **17 checks** by Alexey Khanyan.

```
[Title " Alexey Khanyan, SuperProblem.net, 17 Captureless Consecutive Checks"]
[FEN "b2Rr2q/1r1B4/RP1k2NQ/4b2b/bR3Npr/B1RK4/n1r4B/1b1R4 b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... Bb5+ 2. Rbc4+ Nb4+ 3. Ke4+ Rd2+ 4. Rd3+ Bd4+ 5. Ne7+ Bg6+ 6. Bf5+ Rd7+ 7. b7+ Bc6+ 8. Nfd5+ g3+ 9. Qf4+ Qe5+

```

---
Tags: records, check, captures
---


# Question
Title: Was there a chess piece—elephant, knight or rook—rendered as a being looking into two directions?
I have found a chess set of unknown origin with ducks as pieces. Simple ducks for pawns, king and queen crowned and big, okay, but then, for rook, knight and bishop, I don't know.

There is a duck carrying a book or a small chest with both wings, a duck with wings unfolded, about to fly, and the last piece consists of two ducks back to back.

I think I have once read that one of the pieces elephant (bishop), knight or rook used to be presented as two-headed figurines, or figurines mirrored in themselves, looking into two directions, in some tradition.

Are there- or have there been- traditional piece sets containing such a piece? And as to its form: What is the explanation?

# Answer
In shatranj, the game out of which chess developed, the rukhs (rooks) are portrayed a bit like the way you describe. That Wikipedia article contains this illustration of a 12th-century Iranian shatranj set. The designs of the pieces are rather abstract but the rukh design suggests two heads facing away from each other.

Wikipedia's article on the history of chess contains a picture in which each rook is portrayed with a similar shape. (The board is shown sideways; Black's rooks are on d7 and e8, and White has one on f2.)
> 15 votes

# Answer
The Janus-Springer set includes such a knight.
> 10 votes

# Answer
I don't really know the history; just was curious and will be presenting some of my google findings here.

First, I came across Rook (chess) heraldry on Wikipedia:

> Chess rooks frequently occur as heraldic charges. Heraldic rooks are usually shown as they looked in medieval chess-sets, with the usual battlements replaced by two outward-curving horns. They occur in arms from around the 13th century onwards.

And had this notable image showing the two horns:  *NinjaKid (Ollie Martin), CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons*

Second, I came across this page on chess pieces in heraldry

> Of the six types of pieces used in the game of chess, five are found in Society heraldry: the chess rook, the chess knight, the chess king, the chess bishop, and the chess pawn. Of these, only the chess rook and chess knight have been found in period armory. They are thus the only pieces which, having a standardized form, can be assured to have heraldic difference from the others.
>
> The chess rook was common in medieval heraldry, found as early as c.1285 in the arms of FitzSimon \[ANA2 234\]; it was a frequent source of cants, as with Rockwood (Rokewode, Rookwood), 1371 \[DBA2 260\]. The chess knight was most frequent in German heraldry, as in the arms of zu Tratzperg, mid-16th C \[NW 69\], or of von Hertzheim, 1605 \[Siebmacher 95\]. The chess knight has two heads by default.

There are some images there I don't know if I can reproduce here, but one is of a rook and is similar to what is shown above. The second image for the knight depicts it with two horse heads.

I was curious about the coat of arms, and while searching, I found this Wikipedia page on the municipality of Pforzen (German). It happens to have the following coat of arms:

The following is Google translated from that page about the coat of arms:

> Justification for the coat of arms: The double knight is taken from the coat of arms of the lords of Pforzen, who were already mentioned in the 12th century and whose possession came to the Irsee monastery after they died out in the 14th century. The arrow as an attribute of St. Point out Sebastian. Another aristocratic family, the Leinauers, mentioned since the 12th century, was included in the lower part of the municipal coat of arms. They had their headquarters in the town of Leinau in the municipal area and had a striding stag in their coat of arms.

Interestingly, a link in that paragraph leads to the German Wikipedia page for the Rook (Roch heraldry), not the knight. Some interesting quotes (Google translated):

> The name can be found in the expression castling in chess. The roc was the strongest piece in medieval chess (the forerunner of the later queen had only a few moves). This explains the popularity of the Roch motif.

> As a common figure in heraldry , Roch can be found on coats of arms , as it has been in English heraldry since the 13th century. In Rochlitz in particular , it was already used as a talking coat of arms during the Saxon rule of Roch. The city has two half roches in its coat of arms, the nobility had a full roche. The half roches were also known as hallmarks and guild seals since the 16th century. The French Roquette family and the Spanish Roquesens family also used the tower in this way. The game piece rook from chess is shown, whose upper sides are bent like flowers to the left and right into the coat of arms field. All colors are possible, but the orientation is based on black and white towers on the corresponding color surfaces, with gold being no exception. The resemblance to the lily often led to confusion. In the coat of arms of the von Rochow family from the Mark Brandenburg , the Roch mutated due to incorrect descriptionto lilies or to two horses' heads turned away.

Notice the last sentence, which seems to imply the two-headed horse, at least in this one coat of arms, may have actually been intended to represent the rook, not the knight.

I'm just scratching the surface, and I think there's a lot more to this that's worth exploring. But the commonness of the two-horned rook and its popularity in heraldry, and the way it's at least sometimes depicted as a horse with two heads, makes an interesting case for your two-headed duck potentially having a historical connection to the rook.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: history, pieces, unorthodox-pieces
---


title: Stuck on a mate in 3

text:
# Question
Title: Stuck on a mate in 3
I've been stuck on this for the longest time. At this point I would just like confirmation it is possible.

```
[Title "White mates in 3"]
[FEN "8/8/8/2N5/8/2k1N3/Q3r2q/K7 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
To explain how you can answer this question yourself without spoiling the answer:

1. Go to lichess.org/analysis
2. Paste your FEN into the FEN box, or set up the board manually.
3. Under the hamburger menu, turn off "best move arrow" and set "multiple lines" to 0.

Now, switch on local analysis, and you will see the evaluation is #3. This tells you that white does indeed have a mate in 3.
> 5 votes

# Answer
The mate you are looking for arises after

```
[Title "White mates in 3"]
[FEN "8/8/8/2N5/8/2k1N3/Q3r2q/K7 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qc4+ Kd2 2. Qc1+ Kxc1 3. Nb3#.

```

It features a decoy queen sac and the rare two knights mate.
> 11 votes

---
Tags: problems
---