# Question
Title: Did Indian systems really have fianchettos?
Wikipedia quotes:

> The Indian Defences by g6 coupled with d6, or b6 coupled with e6, were largely taught to European players by the example of Moheschunder and other Indians, to whom the fianchetto developments were a natural legacy from their own game.

(The "their own game" in this instance meaning the older variant.) However, my understanding of Shatranj/Chaturanga rules do not allow fianchetto movements at all.

Is there another older variant that allows fianchetto movements that these people played?

# Answer
> 8 votes
The page you linked to mentions that "Mohishunder originally played traditional Indian chess, in which pawns did not have the option of moving two squares from the starting row." I think that reference to traditional Indian chess refers not all the way back to shatranj/chaturanga, but rather to this 18th and 19th century variant, which has some significant differences from chess as we know it today, but seemingly does not in any way preclude a fianchetto. And since those rules do preclude any advance of a pawn by two squares, it seems reasonable that systems combining g6/d6 or b6/e6 would naturally arise as methods to develop the bishops in that variant.

**Updated References:** As the OP noted in a comment, the wikipedia entry I linked to doesn't indicate any source material. I found another page which describes this variant under the name Hindustani Chess, and it includes a helpful pointer to the 1913 book *A History of Chess*, a 900-page tome written by H.J.R. Murray, which details this particular chess variant in its Chapter IV. As it turns out, it appears that Skyhorse Publishing will be reissuing the book later this year. From their blurb:

> An epic work that took over a decade to complete, A History of Chess, originally published in 1913, was a historic undertaking that shattered preconceptions about the game upon its release. Over a century later, Murray’s research, in which he argues that chess originated in India, is still widely accepted by most chess historians.

---
Tags: opening, history, chess-variants, fianchetto
---


# Question
Title: Can a single player's choice of opening dictate a more (or less) aggressive game?
Usually a player feels comfortable with few "positions" (unless he/she is a GM). That's why sometimes it's said that a player should choose and begin to study openings whose outcome results in a position he/she likes. It's said, for example, that positional players should open with `1. d4`, while aggressive players with `1. e4`; a Black who chooses Sicilian `1. e4 c5` is more aggressive than one who chooses Caro-Kann, etc.

> Are there some lines which allow a *single* player to change the aggressive or positional path of a game, in order to surprise the opponent?

For example, a Benko Gambit, despite the "positional" `1. d4`, is a double-edged opening, but it's chosen by Black whether to play it or not. Is there an aggressive or very tactical opening that *White* may choose after `1. d4`? Other examples: are there ways, for White, to lead a game to a strategic-positional slow battle when Black chooses a Sicilian Defense? Are there ways for Black to play positionally against a King's Gambit?

# Answer
> 8 votes
It feels as though you have already answered your own question. After `1. d4 d5`, white may choose to offer the Queen's Gambit, and go for a somewhat more tactical variation, though black will likely decline. However, as you mentioned, white choosing `1. d4` is already a choice for a more positional play style. The idea is that after `1. d4 d5`, you are already facing a closed game, which, in general, will lead to a positional game rather than a tactical one.

As for the Sicilian defense, white can choose to play a closed Sicilian by not offering up a pawn on d4. This is typically done with the move order `1. e4 c5 2. Nc3`, intending to eventually gain some king-side space by not blocking the f pawn with the g1 knight. For this reason, the Sicilian defense is known as a Semi-open line.

Black has the option to decline the King's Gambit, though typically white will eventually (usually pretty soon) open up the position. Typically, the move order `1. e4 e5` leads to an open game, which in general is more tactical.

So, in attempt to answer the question: if you're playing white, and you're looking for a more tactical game, then you should probably open with `1. e4` rather than `1. d4`. On the other hand, if you want a closed, positional game, I would suggest `1. d4`. I hope this helps.

# Answer
> 3 votes
For the main opening moves, there is no way to do that, e.g. `1. e4` can be met with `1. e5` or `1. c5` and there is nothing white can do about it. However, there are openings where the response of the opponent is not as important as usual, e.g. in the Colle system. Such openings either delay confrontation, or are very "positional".

---
Tags: opening, tactics, psychology, strategy
---


# Question
Title: Enthusiastic about learning to play chess
Is there a quick way to learn to play chess? How did you get started playing chess?

# Answer
If you *really* have nobody that can teach you chess, you can get the rules and some basic advice from the Wikibook, and for playing you can choose from a lot of free chess programs (e.g. Arena) or websites (e.g. chess tempo). Once you have some basic skills, you can try to play against humans as well (e.g. on chess cube).

But it's definitely more fun if you find someone in real life to learn from and to play with...
> 6 votes

# Answer
Find a good player who can teach you the rules and the basics, and then play with him. Playing is surely the easiest (and the most enjoyable) way to learn a game like chess: you'll improve quickly, even if at first you probably will get beaten very often. Then teach chess yourself to some friend of yours, or play with some beginner: this way you may play games with no difference of level (it can be frustrating losing every single game to a more experienced player!).

After that you may try starting playing online, in beginner's rooms of many sites. I'll suggest you to find a chess club near you, if there's any: you'll meet people with same passion as yours, and chess will become even more fun.

As a final advice, after having mastered the rules and played some games (20 to 100 more or less, it depends on you) go and read a beginner strategy-tactics book, there's plenty of them. Find some forum, and resources on the Net.

Just like this site. :)
> 4 votes

# Answer
To answer both your questions:

Chess can be learned in a very short period of time. It only takes five minutes to learn the basics. It is extremely hard to master, but you can get up and running with the basics in less time than you think. Playing with stronger players and practicing will get you better, but it takes lots of time. It depends on how good you want to be.

I started off just playing randomly, usually against my uncle who was a much stronger player than me.
> 2 votes

# Answer
If you're in the US, check out the USCF web site and find a local club. You'll have plenty of opponents then. There are also many online ways to play - try chess.com.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rules
---


# Question
Title: Why is the latest Stockfish (2.2.2) infinitely slower (than 2.1.1) in Scid?
I was about to spend some time researching this, but realized someone might have already looked into it; if not, I may just answer my own question in a few hours.

Scid is pegging one core of the CPU, possibly trying to keep up with input from Stockfish? Stockfish is using 0% CPU, possibly blocking while piping output to Scid. That is just what I suspect is happening--haven't confirmed. In any case, stockfish takes a minute or two to get to 2 depth in analysis--usually after a few seconds I'm to 15 depth at least, so it's orders of magnitude slower.

I didn't change any of my UCI settings, just simply upgraded the executable. Same thing happens on Mac and Windows, so it's probably not platform specific, but something related to the UCI interface?

I have hash size set to 1024MB, "use sleeping threads" = true, and multiple variations set quite high (100 or so), to see all variations scored and searched, which helps in analysis even though it slows down the depth search. The rest of the settings are default (I'm fairly certain).

# Answer
> 5 votes
So, I hashed this out some in a support thread on the stockfish forum.

Basically, you should skip 2.2.2 and compile the latest from github (or just continue to use 2.1.1). I think I'll try this new code for a while to see how it does. The latest code from github works great in chesstempo's UCI connector. It's still a little slow out of the gates in Scid (and Scid acts like it's hanging and doesn't respond to UI commands), but it speeds up as it gets deeper in the search, so it's bearable after 30 seconds or so. I had trouble getting multipv (multiple variations) to work at high numbers, though.

I think Scid should not block the input from the UCI interface--buffering more, if need be. Maybe I'll take a look at the Scid code later to see if I can improve it.

---
Tags: analysis, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: What are good UCI-compatible GUIs for Mac?
Is anyone running a UCI-compatible GUI on a Mac? Preferably something native and modern, so WINE and Rosetta (etc) are not needed. My goal is to simply set up chess positions and let Stockfish analyze.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

# Answer
Scid is what I use. It's compiled to a native app. It seems to work fairly well for this purpose, although Stockfish 2.2.2 is acting weird, you might try 2.1.1 if you have problems. I actually wrote a howto, even though it's fairly simple.

I've recently been running Stockfish with multiple variations turned up to 100, so it looks at all moves deeply, which you wouldn't want to do during a game, but for analysis that you plan to run a long time, it catches some unlikely good moves earlier.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Wow, I usually wouldn't add another answer like this, but I've been quite impressed by the fork of Scid called Scid vs PC (which is more actively maintained, and has a mac distribution called Scid vs Mac). I found it while looking for mac build instructions for Scid while trying to make scid do a better job of processing stockfish's input. (and by the way, Scid vs PC doesn't fix the stockfish 2.2+ problem, as it still depends on the tcl one line at a time input parsing).
> 9 votes

---
Tags: engines, uci
---


# Question
Title: How can I build my opening repertoire and memorization?
I have been playing chess for the last two years. I am trying techniques like controlling the center, not allowing weak pawn structure, etc. Now I am trying to build up an opening repertoire. My question is where to start? Which openings should be checked first? Are there any techniques for memorizing these openings?

If I study some openings and their variations, will that help in memorizing other openings? In other words, are there any patterns in these openings? Glad to hear from experienced players soon.

# Answer
This is a pretty broad question. But you can follow some simple steps.

**1. "What kind of player am I?"**

This is the first question you should ask yourself. Do you like complicated tactical combinations that can give you attacking chances? Or your playing style is more quiet and you prefer positional battles, where you build your advantage little by little? Once you have answered this question, you can choose openings according to your preferences, finding positions you feel more comfortable with.

**2. Black and White**

To build a complete repertoire you may choose openings you like the most, and your choice should include openings for both Black and White side.

Instead of memorizing long sequences of moves, variants, and so on, I tend to privilege a different approach, more gradual and less "automatic". To help you in this work, you'd better have a general "opening book", or follow a general "chess openings website". It should cover the most common openings, giving you also explanation for each move, and maybe some example games. And last but not least, it should be recent, since theory is running fast.

You should start choosing your repertoire when you play with White, since it's easier.

Let's begin considering only the 2 more common moves for White, `1.e4` and `1.d4`. Are you a tactical player? Do you like attacking your opponent's King? Then you should start with `1.e4`. Do you prefer positional play and a solid approach? Then go for `1.d4`.

Let's assume you chose `1.e4`. Now, what are the most common responses for Black? I think they are: `1...e5` (Open games), `1...c5` (Sicilian Defense), `1...e6` (French Defense), `1...c6` (Caro-Kann). Once you have found which are those responses, you have to face them **ONE BY ONE**.

For example, in case your opponent plays `1...c5` and goes for a Sicilian, what should you do with White? Again, find the most common choices: `2.Nf3` (Open Sicilian), `2.c3` (Alapin), `2.Nc3` (Closed Sicilian). Let's say you choose `2.c3`. What are the most common responses for Black? ...and so on.

To help you in your choices, read your opening book, and choose moves whose comments seem to adhere to your playing style (that's why step-1 of this answer is important). *Never* choose a variation just because it's said to be "the best" or "the most popular". Pick moves according to what you feel about it, unless there's a clear confutation to that move.

After you've have arrived at a certain point (after 2-4 moves), you should go back and face the next "mosto common choice" you've left behind. Now, let's assume that Black plays `1...e5`. What move should you choose? You find the most common moves, choose one, and go on a little bit. And again, and again, *until you exhaust all those "most common choices"* you left behind.

With Black you do basically the same thing, with the exception that you have to face from the beginning different first moves by White (at least, you should find your responses agaist `1.e4` and `1.d4`).

**3. Learning, not memorizing**

In this way, little by little you build some "trees" of opening moves, one for White and at least two for Black. Each branch of those trees is a "path", a choice you make when you make your move. But you should never "memorize" the move itself. You'd better learn the meaning that lies behind each move: "why you play this instead of that?" is the question you always have to find the answer to, when you study openings.

At first, your trees might be very short, and you might get confused even after sequences of 3-4 moves. But if you play regularly, you'll manage to master the openings you've chosen, and then you can deepen your tree-paths, add branches (variations), and choose many of them during the game, thus varying your game (and this will improve your playing strenght, since you'll run into different tactical-strategical situations).

When you'll feel more confident you can go and read books that focus on specific openings. You will widen your trees, play various kind of games, and learn that sometimes tactical-strategical ideas behind an openig are used also in a different opening. You'll learn evetually about the good and the bad in moves transposition, and how to manage them. But you'll have to work hard to get there. :)

Take just one step at a time. :)
> 13 votes

---
Tags: opening, preparation
---


# Question
Title: Is there any chess engine that can show if one side has a forced draw?
Is there any chess engine that has an analysis mode that can show if a position is a forced draw by either side?

It is common for engines to output evaluations of 0.0 when they detect a draw. But an evaluation of 0.0 can mean many things. For example, assuming it is white to move, an evaluation of 0.0 can mean:

* The game is certainly a draw regardless of how either player plays (e.g. insufficient material).
* Both players can force a draw. Neither player can hope to win if their opponent plays perfectly.
* No matter which move white plays, the computer is 100% sure that black can force a draw if he wishes to. White cannot hope to win if black plays perfectly. A draw is the most likely outcome, but a deeper search might show that black can force a win.
* The computer is 100% sure that white can force a draw if he wishes to. Black cannot hope to win if white plays perfectly. A draw is the most likely outcome, but a deeper search might show that white can force a win.
* The computer has not found a forced draw for either side, but the evaluation so far is exactly level. A draw is the most likely outcome, but a deeper search may later show an advantage for one side.

Just to give an example of when this might be useful, if white doesn't need to win and just wants to be as sure as possible of getting a draw then they might prefer to play a move with evaluation +0.0 and a known forced draw even though another move with a higher evaluation is available.

Another example is that if you *need* a win (i.e. a draw is just as bad as a loss) you might want to play a move with a slight negative evaluation to avoid giving your opponent the opportunity to force a draw. Even though this increases your chance of losing, it also increases your chance of winning.

Obviously there are positions where it is difficult or impossible to be sure whether a forced draw is available or not. But if the engine announces a forced draw then it *must* be possible to force a draw. False negatives are acceptable but there should be no false positives.

So in summary, I'd like to know for a specific position if one (or both players) have a forced draw available to them. Calculating the numerical evaluation of the position is not necessary, but if it also provides this at the same time, that's a bonus.

# Answer
The short answer to your question is **no**, there is not a chess engine that can reliably show if one side has a forced draw. For example, this locked position is quite clearly a draw to the human eye:

However, notice that the evaluation is *0.17*, not *0.00*. Houdini also give *0.05* \- ever so slightly good for white. This is very important. This suggests that the evaluation of *0.00* is reserved by these programs for a specific reason, and indeed it is. Basically, even in an "equal" position, the computer will not ever say that the score is *0.00*, instead it will give a minute edge to one or the other side.

So with that background, on to the specifics! First, if the game is just a draw due to the position (i.e. stalemate, insufficient material, etc.) most GUI's will pop up a message that says "Game Drawn", or something to that effect. That leaves the more complicated cases that you mentioned in your question. In order to cover most of those, I'll introduce another position. This is taken from Morphy-NN 1-0, New Orleans Blindfold Simul:

Notice that Morphy currently has mate in 6 starting with `18.b4+!`. However, if Morphy somehow missed that this was mate, he still had a forced draw by repetition, which the computer quickly sees. By increasing the number of variations that the computer displays, it is possible to see that after white plays a move like `18.Qxc3+?`, white can still force a draw, despite being down a rook and a piece. The evaluation of *0.00* again tips us off that this is a special position in that the computer can calculate a perpetual check. If the moves `18.Qxc3+? Kxd5` are made on the board, then the evaluation will be *0.00*, indicating that white's best continuation is to force a draw. Failure to do this will lead to loss of the game with best play.

---

So to summarize, no existing engine can say with exact certainty that a position is a draw. However, the evaluation of *0.00* is special, and if that shows up as either the main score, or the score for a variation, that means that a draw is probably being forced in that specific line. The easiest way to check is playfully called "spacebar analysis" - when the user hits the spacebar over and over again to force the computer to play the top recommended move. Eventually you will get to a position that is obvious to a human as well as the machine.

---

And finally, to address your point about "contempt"

> Another example is that if you need a win (i.e. a draw is just as bad as a loss) you might want to play a move with a slight negative evaluation to avoid giving your opponent the opportunity to force a draw. Even though this increases your chance of losing, it also increases your chance of winning.

This is quite simply referred to as contempt among chess programmers. Most engines will allow you to set the level of contempt in the settings. A positive contempt setting (100 is usually a reasonable level for analysis) will tell the engine to try fairly hard (a pawn's worth) to avoid a draw. A negative setting will cause the engine to seek a forced draw (i.e. insufficient material, stalemate, or perpetual).
> 11 votes

# Answer
Just as engines can, at certain points, see a forced mate some number of moves away, because there are forcing enough lines that the engine can see everything perfectly in the remaining depth until mate, there are also junctures in chess games that would allow an engine to see a forced draw for the same reason of being able to completely survey the limited possibilities in play.

Moreover, it would be easy to tweak an engine's evaluation function in order to make it seek out and prefer moves that lead to such forced draws: just as achieving mate is typically given some enormous value that dwarfs all other numerical factors that the engine's evaluation algorithm considers in order to guide the engine's play toward the ultimate objective, one could instead give such an enormous numerical value to achieving one of the sorts of draws I have in mind.

For instance, automatically evaluate any position in which the opponent has insufficient material to mate as +1000000. Then, if the engine ever finds itself with the option of forcing off that much material of the opponent's, it will let you know. Also, tweak the evaluation algorithm to evaluate any three-fold repetition as +1000000 instead of the usual 0. Then, if there is a forcible repetition (as in a perpetual check scenario), the engine will love it and let you know about it. Similarly, give +1000000 if one can forcibly reach a tablebase draw.

You could also ensure that the engine will give these valuations only when there is complete certainty that the draws really are forcible (because the tree between here and there has been able to be fully checked), just as with an engine not announcing mate unless it is sure. Thus, you won't get any false positives, though there will of course be plenty of false negatives, which you sensibly/necessarily allow in your question.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, engines, draw
---


# Question
Title: What openings should be played in a simul?
What openings are usually good for a simul? I'm assuming that it's an all-comers simul, so there could be strong players mixed in. Does the answer change if the strength of the opponents is known ahead of time?

# Answer
I've always heard that person giving a simul should strive for quiet positions, where they can use their superior understanding and not have to calculate much, and his opponents should strive for the opposite: complex, tactical positions. Even GMs can miscalculate while giving a simul, since they have so little time per move, and so many boards to worry about. This makes sense to me, and I think this holds regardless whether strength of participants is known in advance.

Having said that, there are some crazy Morphy and Alekhine tactical wins in simuls, even blindfold simuls.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: opening, simultaneous
---


# Question
Title: How should I defend against this sacrifice in the Two Knights Defense?
I often get to play this opening :

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 d6 5. Nc3 Bg4 (5... Be7 6. Be3 Bg4) (4... Bc5 5. Nc3 d6 6. O-O Bg4)

```

Sometimes there may be other moves or developments before the pin, like in the variations. In any case, now that my light squared bishop is outside my pawn chain, it's hard for it to come back and defend my knight on `f3`. So I usually feel like I need to kick the bishop from `g4` with a move like `h3`. After it retreats and `7.g4`, I'll sometimes see my pawns captured :

```
[fen "r2qkb1r/ppp2ppp/2np1n2/4p3/2B1P1b1/2NP1N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R w - - 0 6"]

6. h3 Bh5 7. g4 Nxg4 8. hxg4 Bxg4 (7... Bg6)

```

I looked at this position in Rybka and used the Chess.com computers to analyze the position, both of which label `7... Nxg4` as a mistake. However, I'm not sure how to punish this mistake, as afterwards, my knight is still pinned to the queen, and my bishop on `c4` still can't find any good way to come back and defend.

Can someone explain to me the correct way to continue this position as white? I usually find myself losing the knight on `f3`, and eventually lose the position. Here is a link to the position in Chess.com's Game explorer. It isn't seen very often at master level play.

# Answer
I almost always play `4. d4` instead of `4. d3`, to keep that line open for the bishop, and open up the game a bit as well. That's not to say `d3` isn't ok.

Without computer analysis: That said, once they make the mistake of sacrificing that knight, you should quickly play `Be3` to defend against them double attacking your pinned knight. Once that is accomplished, you can play `Qe2` with the plan of castling queenside and evacuating your destroyed kingside pawn structure. Your goal should then be to carefully simplify by trading down until you get to an endgame where you're up a minor piece.

With computer analysis: Stockfish recommends playing `9. Nd5`, with the plan of playing `10. Ne3` for most responses, attacking the bishop on g4 (causing him to retreat with `...Bd7` or `...Be6`, probably. The great thing to notice here is that `9... Nd4` is not actually a threat, even though at first glance it appears to lose the knight on f3. After `9... Nd4`, White's tactic is as follows: `10. Nxd4! Bxd1 11. Bb5! Qd7` (there is no other option to prevent mate, either `11... Qd7` or `11... c6 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Bxc6 Qd7`). Bad news for black. After the dust settles it probably looks something like this.

Back to the main line: `9. Nd5`. Black can respond with a dozen reasonable moves (`...Na5`, `...Be7`, `...h5`, `...Qd7`, `...Qc7`, `...Qc8`, `...a6`, `...Rc8`, `...a5`, `...Rb8`), all of which follow with `10. Ne3` (except for `9... Bxf3`, in which case `10. Qxf3` is rather necessary). After this, you can start a kingside attack somewhat with `Rg1`, and getting your pieces out of the way for a castle queenside. You can turn your destroyed kingside pawns to your advantage by starting the attack there. Plenty of options from here on. You end up with something like:

For your second line, after you've already castled, I would not play `h3` \+ `g4`, which weakens your king's defenses (even if they don't sacrifice a piece there). If you really want to play `g4`, you can still recover with `Be3`, defending against `...Nd4`. They'll probably bring out the queen to attack (`...Qf6`), and you need to get your king out of there, undoing your castle to get your rook back outside of the king: `Kg2` followed by `Rg1` or `Rh1`. This situation isn't nearly as good for white; you'd be better off just avoiding `g4` after castling, at least at this early stage.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: opening, sacrifice, two-knights, italian-game
---


# Question
Title: Ideas to improve chess books usability in the XXI century
I enjoy reading a book of chess on the outside, with my iPhone (and Stockfish) to explore situations. However, I spend too many time setting up the board manually. So here's a crazy idea (patent-free): **Encode board positions (FEN) in QR-Codes!** Example:

What other simple ideas could improve the usability of current (printed) books?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I've long felt that scripting short systems of moves in their chess notation would be very helpful as a teaching tool as well. There are many, many projects out there that can replay a set of instructions, and it would make it much easier to not only show how to set up some of the basic openings, but also explore their ramifications in response to different positions.

---
Tags: books
---


# Question
Title: What are some chess games that feature Zugzwang despite many pieces remaining on the board?
The game Saemisch - Nimzowitsch (Copenhagen 1923) has come to be known as the *Immortal Zugzwang Game*, as a play on Anderssen's swashbuckling Immortal Game. I am interested in finding other examples of what might be called a "grand Zugzwang," where there are still many pieces on the board (rather than a less-cluttered endgame position, where Zugzwang most commonly occurs) but one player is stuck in a situation where the compulsion to move will ultimately ruin his or her position.

It turns out there is already a great wikipedia entry that lists several fantastic examples, including my personal favorite Podgaets - Dvoretsky (Odessa 1974), which includes the one move in chess history I would most like to have played: in the position

```
[FEN "5r2/p5k1/Pp1p2p1/2pP4/6nq/8/1PP2PQ1/5RKB b - - 0 1"]
[White "Mikhail Podgaets"]
[Black "Mark Dvoretsky"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

```

Dvoretsky played the spectacular `29. ... Rf3!!`, leaving white completely paralyzed in a position where any move (after he runs out of pawn waiting moves) leads to immediate ruin. This brings me to my question:

> Can you point me to other "grand Zugzwang" games, ones that are not mentioned on the wikipedia page above?

Since wikipedia can be a moving target, I'll list the games (beyond the two already mentioned above) that are on the wikipedia page as of my writing:

# Answer
The game Alekhine-Nimzowitsch immediately comes to mind; a great example of both a zugzwang in a position full of pieces and the infamous "Alekhine's Gun" (the tripled major pieces on the c-file):

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Alexander Alekhine"]
[Black "Aron Nimzowitsch"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2 Ne7 6. Nb5 Bxd2+
7. Qxd2 O-O 8. c3 b6 9. f4 Ba6 10. Nf3 Qd7 11. a4 Nbc6 12. b4
cxb4 13. cxb4 Bb7 14. Nd6 f5 15. a5 Nc8 16. Nxb7 Qxb7 17. a6
Qf7 18. Bb5 N8e7 19. O-O h6 20. Rfc1 Rfc8 21. Rc2 Qe8 22. Rac1
Rab8 23. Qe3 Rc7 24. Rc3 Qd7 25. R1c2 Kf8 26. Qc1 Rbc8 27. Ba4
b5 28. Bxb5 Ke8 29. Ba4 Kd8 30. h4 1-0

```

Nimzowitsch resigned here, as Alekhine will be able to just sit tight, making waiting moves with his king, say, and once Nimzowitsch runs out of moves with his g- and h-pawns, any piece move will spell disaster:

* The c6 knight is pinned to the queen.
* The c7 rook has no squares.
* The c8 rook and e7 knight can't move because both are needed to defend the c6 knight.
* Finally, if `...Ke8` or `...Qe8`, then the c7 rook is inadequately defended after the move `b5` kicks the knight away.
> 15 votes

# Answer
And here's more. An article by Larry Kaufman points to yet another nice example from Fischer, this one played against Daniel Collins in a simul in 1964:

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Bobby Fischer"]
[Black "Daniel Collins"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Nc5 Qc7 6.Bd3 Bxd3 7.Nxd3 Nd7
8. Bf4 Qb6 9.Nf3 f6 10.O-O O-O-O 11.a4 Re8 12.a5 Qd8 13.Re1 g5 14.Bg3 h5
15. h4 g4 16.Nd2 Nh6 17.Nc4 Nf5 18.a6 b5 19.Na5 Qb6 20.Nc5 Nxg3 21.Re6 Nb8
22. fxg3 Rd8 23.c3 Rd6 24.Qe2 Rxe6 25.Qxe6+ Kc7 26.b4

```

In the final position given here (which isn't the final position of the full game), note that:

* The black queen has no safe squares.
* `... Nxa6` allows `Qd7+` and impending doom.
* `... f5` allows `Qe5+`, forking the king and rook.
* A rook move allows `Qg8` and the bishop is lost.
* A bishop move allows `Qxe7+`.
* Black wasn't actually in Zugzwang yet, as he could have safely played `26. ... Kd8`, but after `27. Nab7+ Kc7` (`... Ke8 28. Nd6+ Kd8 29. Qc8#`) `28. Kh2` the Zugzwang would be in full effect.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: history, positional-play, zugzwang
---


# Question
Title: What serious use of en passant has been made recently?
I'm a (very) amateur player and have seen the use of en-passant only a couple of times in club games. Chess books I've read (Soltis, Weeramantry, Pandolfini,etc.) feature hardly any games having en-passant pawn captures.

> Are there any recent championship games featuring a serious use of en-passant?

By "serious" I mean the outcome of the game depended substantially on this move.

# Answer
> 16 votes
I'll give an example that isn't from a world championship match, and isn't recent either. In fact, it doesn't even have an en passant capture in it. (Bear with me.) It does have a world champion playing in it, though, and more importantly, I hope it illustrates the following: *even when no en passant capture actually occurs in a game, the fact that it is possible might be playing a very big role*. This is not entirely unrelated to the old chess saying, "the threat is stronger than the execution."

In the game Alekhine - Yates (London 1922), we have the following position after black's thirty-first move:

```
[FEN "r3r1k1/2R3p1/2R1p2p/3pNp1P/p2P1K2/Pp2PP2/1P4P1/5b2 w - - 0 31"]

1. g3 1... Ba6 (1... g5+ 2. hxg6) 2. Rf7 Kh7 3. Rcc7 Rg8 4. Nd7 Kh8 5. Nf6 Rgf8 6. Rxg7! Rxf6 7. Ke5 7... 1-0 (7... Rff8 8. Rh7+ Kg8 9. Rcg7#) (7... Raf8 8. Rh7+ Kg8 9. Rcg7#)

```

Alekhine has boldly played his king forward with the idea of infiltrating the black position via e5. On the previous move, Yates had attacked his g-pawn with `31. ... Bf1` and Alekhine replies simply with `32. g3` to keep the pawn safe, ready to get back to business after that. Looking at the position, we can see that if Alekhine didn't have the en passant capture at his disposal, then Yates would be able to checkmate him with `32. ... g5`. But since the rule is in effect, Alekhine's king is actually perfectly safe, and in a strong position to help his other forces attack.

Now Alekhine didn't have to play `32. g3` setting up this "pseudo-mate" possibility. But still the point is that the white pawn on h5 and its en passant threat plays a big part in Alekhine's suffocating clamp on the black position, and his successful invasion. Yates resigned only a few moves later, with Alekhine's king delivering the final blow on e5: `32. ... Ba6 33. Rf7 Kh7 34. Rcc7 Rg8 35. Nd7 Kh8 36. Nf6 Rgf8 37. Rxg7! Rxf6 38. Ke5 1-0`.

Yates must lose his rook, because if either rook moves to f8, Alekhine has mate in two with `39. Rh7+ Kg8 40. Rcg7#`. To reiterate the larger point:

> Many potential en passant captures that never actually occur, because the mere possibility of it discourages the other player from ever making the two-square advance in the first place, still play a major role in the game. This aspect - the most effective en passant is perhaps the one you never see - is one reason why, superficially, the en passant capture might seem like a less important/significant feature of chess than it actually is.

# Answer
> 10 votes
In 12th (Final) game of Anand - Topalov match, en passant did come into play.

*Position after `36...g5+`*

`37. fxg6` is an en passant capture. Topalov still lost the game; however, if he did not have en passant capture, he would've lost much sooner.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "World Championship Match"]
[Site "Sofia BUL"]
[Date "2010.05.11"]
[EventDate "2010.04.26"]
[Round "12"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Topalov"]
[Black "Anand"]
[ECO "D56"]
[WhiteElo "2805"]
[BlackElo "2787"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 O-O 7.e3
Ne4 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Be2 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 dxc4 12.Bxc4 Nd7
13.O-O b6 14.Bd3 c5 15.Be4 Rb8 16.Qc2 Nf6 17.dxc5 Nxe4 18.Qxe4
bxc5 19.Qc2 Bb7 20.Nd2 Rfd8 21.f3 Ba6 22.Rf2 Rd7 23.g3 Rbd8
24.Kg2 Bd3 25.Qc1 Ba6 26.Ra3 Bb7 27.Nb3 Rc7 28.Na5 Ba8 29.Nc4
e5 30.e4 f5 31.exf5 e4 32.fxe4 Qxe4+ 33.Kh3 Rd4 34.Ne3 Qe8
35.g4 h5 36.Kh4 g5+ 37.fxg6 Qxg6 38.Qf1 Rxg4+ 39.Kh3 Re7
40.Rf8+ Kg7 41.Nf5+ Kh7 42.Rg3 Rxg3+ 43.hxg3 Qg4+ 44.Kh2 Re2+
45.Kg1 Rg2+ 46.Qxg2 Bxg2 47.Kxg2 Qe2+ 48.Kh3 c4 49.a4 a5
50.Rf6 Kg8 51.Nh6+ Kg7 52.Rb6 Qe4 53.Kh2 Kh7 54.Rd6 Qe5 55.Nf7
Qxb2+ 56.Kh3 Qg7 0-1

```

Source: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1582125

---
Tags: master-games, en-passant
---


title: Did Reinfeld make a mistake?

text:
# Question
Title: Did Reinfeld make a mistake?
One of the illustrative games featured in Fred Reinfeld's *The Complete Chessplayer* is a game between A. Muffang - P. Devos, France-Belgium 1948:

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. O-O a6 7. a3 Be7 8. Qe2 b5
9. Ba2 Bb7 10. dxc5 Bxc5 11. b4 Ba7 12. Bb2 O-O 13. Nbd2 Ne4? 14. Rfd1 Qe7 15. Rac1 Nxd2
16. Qxd2! Bb6 17. Qc3! f6 18. Nd4! Bxd4 19. Qxd4 Nc6 20. Qc5 Rfe8 21. Rd6 Nd8
22. Qd4! Bc8 23. h4 Kh8 24. Bb1! Rb8 25. Qe4 f5 26. Qe5 Ra8 27. Rc7!! 1-0

```

The point in question is Reinfeld's commentary on move 16, after `16. Qxd2!`; he says:

> A pretty variation is 16 ... N-B3; 17 RxN! BxR; 18 Q-B3 (*double attack*) threatening mate and therefore winning the Bishop on QB6, with the victorious material advantage of two minor pieces for a Rook.

Translated into algebraic, that is `16... Nc6 17. Rxc6! Bxc6 18. Qc3`:

```
[FEN "rn3rk1/bb2qppp/p3p3/1p6/1P6/P3PN2/BB1nQPPP/2RR2K1 w - - 0 16"]

1. Qxd2! Nc6 2. Rxc6! Bxc6 3. Qc3

```

But what about `18... Qf6`? That not only parries the mate threat, but if now `19. Qxc6`, then `19... Qxb2`, bishop for bishop, and White cannot even continue with `20. Qxa6?` (taking a vital unprotected pawn), for Black can then take White's other bishop - `20... Qxa2`. In fact, any line of play makes it hard for White to rescue the bishop after `19... Qxb2`. `20. Rd2??`, the only possible move to protect the bishop results in `20... Qa1+!` forcing mate in four. And `20. Bb1`, the only possible move of the bishop to safety results in the loss of his QR pawn - `20... Qxa3`.

```
[FEN "r4rk1/b3qppp/p1b1p3/1p6/1P6/P1Q1PN2/BB3PPP/3R2K1 b - - 1 18"]

1... Qf6 2. Qxc6 Qxb2 3. Bb1 Qxa3 (3. Qxa6? Qxa2) (3. Rd2?? Qa1+! 4. Bb1 Qxb1+ 5. Qc1 Qxc1+ 6. Rd1 Qxd1+ 7. Ne1 Qxe1#)

```

I don't see any way for White to justify the sacrifice of the Exchange with `17. Rxc6`, since after `18... Qf6` it looks as if Black can hold his own. (Yes, there is `19. Qxf6 gxf6 20. Bxf6` winning a Pawn, but that doesn't make up for the loss of the Exchange. And Black can also double White's pawns and steer toward the endgame with `20... Bxf3 21. gxf3`.)

Am I right in saying that Reinfeld made a mistake, or am I missing something?

# Answer
Yes, it does look like Reinfeld made a mistake, but white should still be doing well after `18... Qf6`.

White should now play `19. Qc1!` hitting the queen and the bishop. Now black's best continuation is to sacrifice the queen with `19... Bxf3 20. Bxf6 Bxd1`

```
[FEN "r4rk1/b4ppp/p1b1pq2/1p6/1P6/P1Q1PN2/BB3PPP/3R2K1 w - - 1 18"]

1. Qc1 Bxf3 2. Bxf6 Bxd1

```

One possible line from here is

```
[FEN "r4rk1/b4ppp/p3pB2/1p6/1P6/P3P3/B4PPP/2Qb2K1 w - - 1 18"]

1. Bxg7 Kxg7 2. Qxd1 Rad8 3. Qg4+ Kh8

```

and white has a queen and a pawn for the two rooks, but a strong attack because black's king is so weak.

To summarize, it does appear that Reinfeld made a mistake because after `16... Nc6?` white can simply play `17. Qc3!` and win easily, but even the line he gives should be okay for white.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: analysis, combinations, master-games
---


# Question
Title: Trading off two rooks for queen and pawn
I have hardly if ever seen 2 rooks being traded off for queen and pawn (or for just queen) in common games.

> Under what conditions is this trade-off advisable? Why is it fairly uncommon?

# Answer
If anything, it would be advisable to trade one's queen for the opponent's rooks, not vice versa. But it all depends on the position. If my opponent's queen is particularly useful to him and dangerous to me, and my rooks haven't been well developed, especially if I'm already ahead in material, I wouldn't hesitate to exchange my rooks for the queen.

Also, in the middle game, if my opponent's rooks are passive, and his king is exposed, I might prefer to exchange away my rooks in favor of having my queen to worry the king with. In some positions, a queen and minor piece can be more effective than two rooks and a minor piece. Such positions generally occur during the middle game, when the opponent's many pawns and minor pieces hamper most offensive rook moves. In contrast, the queen can do very well with her great scope, especially when supported with one or two well-situated minor pieces.

Two rooks for queen and pawn - well, it would depend a lot on the pawn, *and* on the position. I would almost certainly trade two rooks for a queen and passed pawn, but I'd regard the opportunity with suspicion if the pawn in question was an underdeveloped doubled pawn already amply guarded against by my pawns. More than likely, I'd be able to pick up such a pawn later, if it turned out to be necessary.

However, I would consider it a definite material advantage *at most times* to exchange my queen for two rooks.

The likely reasons why you don't see it much are that 1) the opportunity isn't all that common, and 2) the side getting the two rooks generally becomes stronger, so his opponent will want to avoid it.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: strategy, queens, rooks, point-value, trading
---


title: How has the Grandmaster title evolved?

text:
# Question
Title: How has the Grandmaster title evolved?
The wikipedia article is a good starting point, but I'm also interested in how the specific regulations have changed over the years.

Currently, 3 norms must be achieved1 in tournaments that adhere to specific guidelines including foreign players, titled players, and a certain performance rating must be attained.

What was the origin of the current rules, and what were the earlier rules?

---

1. Usually... there are exceptions to this however.

# Answer
> 6 votes
One way it is evolving is with the informal 'super-GM' title. At one time, there weren't many GMs. Being a GM was being in an elite club. Now there are a lot of GMs and the differences in their strengths are beginning to show. (I'm not talking about a GM's performance degrading due to age...)

From the wiki linked below:

> In 1972 there were only 88 GMs with 33 representing the USSR. The current FIDE ratings list includes over 1000 grandmasters.

Perhaps 20 years ago, a GM rated 2600 was a 'super GM'. Now 2700 could well be that mark, with some GMs peaking at 2850 or so.

Also from the article:

> December 2008 saw a record number of GMs (1,192) and IMs (2,916) causing some FIDE officials to suggest that FIDE should consider an "elite grandmaster" title.\[17\] The unofficial title, "Super Grandmaster", is often used by players to refer to those with a 2700+ rating to distinguish the most serious world champion contenders.

Read more here. This article also includes a synopsis of how GM and IM norms are earned, including rules changes by year. It's very interesting.

---
Tags: rating, fide, grandmaster
---


# Question
Title: Why is Byrne vs. Fischer (1956) regarded as the "Game of the Century"?
(This is the game in question.) Is it because it was played by a 13-year-old Bobby Fischer? Would it have been different if it were played by a much older player? Who labeled it the "game of the century" and did this game between Tal and Smyslov (1959) miss being the "game of the century" by 3 years?

# Answer
The "Game of the Century" was a term coined by Hans Kmoch in Chess Review. In short it was a bit of sensationalism. While Fischer did show a talent for combinations and an impressive sacrifice, the real importance of the game was the story of a leading chess master vs a phenomenal prodigy about to begin his historic rise.

Still, it's helpful to note what David Levy said: "In my opinion, however, the game, attractive though it is, can in no way be held in such high exaltation. It was merely the fact that the combination was created by a thirteen-old boy that brought the game so much publicity. Had it been played in the Barnet League between two sixty-year-old men it is doubtful whether it would have been considered worthy of publication".

As for the game between Tal and Smyslov, the similarities in age are easy to spot, but the chess playing doesn't really compare.

The full game and commentary can be found over at Wikipedia.
> 12 votes

# Answer
I just wanted to add, Jerry aka ChessNetwork, a USCF Master, did an analysis of this game. It is worth watching.

When this game was played, it was the best game of chess ever by a 13 year old. The combination of defeating a master in a beautiful way, being the one using the black pieces, and being only 13 years old is what gave this game so much attention.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: famous-players, fischer, tal
---


title: How to play the Albin Counter Gambit

text:
# Question
Title: How to play the Albin Counter Gambit
The Albin Counter Gambit starts `1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4`, and there is a well known and beautiful trap with a pawn to knight promotion if white plays e3.

Recently players such as Morozevich and Nakamura have been playing the Counter Gambit at the highest levels, and I found this page which discusses things.

Essentially, I am looking for more discussion of the key ideas in the gambit. How long should I try to hold onto the pawn on d4? Where do I end up castling? (I find occasionally I end up with some choice.) Which squares and minor pieces are *usually* the most important? I am looking for some abstract goals and ideas. What kind of plan should one have in mind when playing this opening as black?

# Answer
> 9 votes
Czechoslovakian Master Karel Prucha formulated some correct principles on how to play the Albin Counter Gambit and published them in Ceskoslovensky Sach 9/1962:

```
1. The Albin is playable only if it is treated as a pure gambit.
   Black should not try to regain the pawn by attacking White's e5-pawn,
   but must continue in gambit style with ...f7-f6.

2. After that, Black must castle short. Long castling leads to mutual attacks where
   White's extra pawn becomes a factor.

3. Black should keep the d4-pawn at any cost.

4. Black's Queen should be posted on d7 with the idea of exchanging of the
   light-squared Bishops by ...Bh3 and enabling additional support for the
   d4-pawn by ...Rad8.

5. It is best to place the dark-squared Bishop on c5, which means that if White plays
   a2-a3, then a7-a5 is necessary to stop White's advance b2-b4.

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
This answer is a counterpoint to Prucha's principles, as given in xaisoft's answer, in particular the first principle:

> The Albin is playable only if it is treated as a pure gambit. Black should not try to regain the pawn by attacking White's e5-pawn, but must continue in gambit style with `...f7-f6`.

As mentioned in the question, the Albin saw a revival at the highest levels in the last few years, primarily in the hands of Alexander Morozevich. And the approach that he has taken is precisely that against which Prucha recommends; namely, Morozevich (and Nakamura too) have responded to the mainline fianchetto with `5. g3 Nge7`, with the intention of following up by `... Ng6` in order to gang up on the e5 pawn. According to Nigel Davies' *Gambiteer II*:

> This has been an Albin backwater for years, but now it looks like it might be the best way of playing the gambit. Naturally White can try to hold on to his pawn, but this can often prove to be a dangerous course.

Prucha's third principle, about maintaining the d4-pawn, seems to be generally good advice (though I wouldn't take that "at any cost" too literally). A nice example game where Black's play revolves squarely around the d4 point is Sokolov - Morozevich (Corus 2005), in which Morozevich maintains the pawn on d4 up until the point when it became a strong passer with `27. ... d3`, and Sokolov resigned after move 34. In general, though, the Albin seems to be an opening where calculation and concrete details in particular positions carry the day more than a handful of guiding principles will.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, aggressive-play
---


title: What is it about Magnus Carlsen?

text:
# Question
Title: What is it about Magnus Carlsen?
It seems every where I read, Magnus Carlsen is involved in a discussion on if he is or will be the greatest chess player of all time. It also seems as if some are crowning him world champion even though he hasn't won one yet, so my questions are what makes Carlsen so good? Why are people so confident in Carlsen? Does he have something other players such as Aronian don't have? I also saw that *60 minutes* did a special and called Carlsen the Mozart of Chess. Where is all this coming from?

# Answer
> 22 votes
Carlsen is 21 years young and is currently the highest-rated player in the world. He scored a win against Karpov and a draw against Kasparov at the tender age of 13 (Reykjavik Rapid 2004), and was the second youngest player to become a grandmaster (at the time he did it). Things like that are enough to brew confidence, garner world championship expectations, and draw superficial comparisons to a similarly precocious talent like Mozart.

I imagine that his main advantage over his current closest rival Aronian in terms of grabbing attention is just the fact that he is 8 years younger. And whereas, say, Sergey Karjakin is only a year older than Carlsen, and is the one who still holds the record for becoming the youngest grandmaster ever, he simply doesn't have the sort of tournament record that Carlsen does, especially in the highest-class tournaments of the last few years. (Note that Karjakin does have impressive recent wins like Wijk aan Zee 2009, Tal Memorial 2010 and Bazna Kings 2011; but Carlsen's success of late has been such that that trophy shelf pales in comparison.)

Anyway, assuming the upcoming world championship cycle goes through as planned, then Carlsen will have his chance to justify all the chatter and expectations. But I'll be rooting for Kramnik or Aronian myself :-)

# Answer
> 12 votes
I just wanted to add a bit more to Ed Dean's Answer.

These are some fun facts:

> In October 2005 he took first place at the Arnold Eikrem Memorial in Gausdal with eight out of nine points and a performance rating of 2792 at the age of 14.

When Carlsen was 18 years old, he became one of the few people in history to have an Elo rating over 2800.

> Carlsen won the category 21 Nanjing Pearl Spring tournament, 2½ points ahead of second-place finisher Topalov, the world's highest-rated player at the time. He scored 8/10 (six wins, four draws, no losses), winning every game as White (against Topalov, Wang Yue, Leko, Radjabov, and Jakovenko), and also winning as Black against Jakovenko. By rating performance, this was one of the greatest results in history, with a performance rating of 3002

**Source:** Wikipedia

# Answer
> 4 votes
Carlsen is popular, young, and a semi public figure. He plays at the Internet Chess Club which generates a lot of fans. A turning point for my view towards Carlsen was his success in this tournament which had a lot of bragging rights to it. The World Blitz Championship from 2010 where Carlsen took out Hikaru Nakamura (who is by far my current favorite chess player)

---
Tags: world-championship, carlsen, famous-players, super-grandmaster, talent
---


# Question
Title: Does the chess community have a problem with manners and sportsmanship?
Chess can be such an emotional game, when your intelligence is paired up against your opponent's.

It's great fun at times, but at other times, it seems like we get too sensitive. More so than, say, basketball or even billiards.

I'm asking because I recently faced an opponent on chess.com who, after I offered and he naively accepted a series of gambits, very rudely typed a chat message. Now, we've never even met or played before. And this is a game, is it not?

So my question is: is there chess etiquette somewhere?

# Answer
Yes, you're right - there was a great lack of etiquette in your opponent, but it wasn't chess etiquette, it was simply general etiquette.

I think you'll find that in every area of competition, there are several contenders who have a problem with etiquette. It's not just chess. You don't need a different level or standard of etiquette for chess than for other games; it's simply that good sportsmanship is more necessary in chess than in some other games, since it's a competitive game.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I would say that the chess community does very well in terms of sportsmanship as compared to other competitive endeavors. I think it's a mistake to compare the behavior witnessed in **online** chess with the behavior witnessed in basketball or billiards (incidentally, two of my other most favorite kinds of competition). I'm sure that anyone who has played any significant amount of online chess has been needlessly attacked at some point (I know I have), but the relative anonymity of the internet is the culprit there far more than anything specific about chess.

I have seen some bad behavior when playing over-the-board chess, but in my experience at least, it is *far less frequent and far less severe* than typical bad behavior on the basketball court, or in the pool hall. Purely anecdotal, I know, but I still think it's fair to say that etiquette is as alive and well in chess as it is most anywhere else, so long as the participants have to show their faces, or attach their real names and reputations to what they do.
> 6 votes

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


# Question
Title: Should I recapture the queen with my king or knight in the Scotch Game?
I watched the following video on the Scotch Game by NM Dereque Kelley, and he clearly points out that `3...d6` is not a good move on Black's part because it causes all sorts of problems, especially coming from `4. Bb5` pinning the knight. But if Black does play `3...d6` and `4. dxe5 dxe5 5. Qxd8+` follows, we arrive at a position that I have been in many times as White and as Black. As Black, I normally would play `5...Nxd8`, but in the video, Dereque says that this is not an option because it leaves the `e5` pawn hanging, so Black must capture with `5...Kxd8` and give up castling rights. Is this really the best move given that castling is a fundamental part of the opening? I understand that `5...Nxd8` does leave the `e5` pawn hanging, but what is more important here, holding on to the `e5` pawn or maintaining the ability to castle?

# Answer
As you say, each of the options `5. ... Nxd8` and `5. ... Kxd8` has its own drawbacks: the former drops a pawn and the latter gives up castling rights. In this situation Kelley is right that losing the pawn is significantly worse than giving up the right to castle.

In a typical middlegame that features a lot of firepower on board for both sides, a king stuck in the center of the board can be in a great deal of danger of facing a mating attack. But in this case, the king gets stuck in the center only after the queens come off the board, which means Black has much less to worry about in terms of facing an attack. This queenless middlegame is not so far removed from an endgame, in which centralization of the king is generally a plus rather than a minus. Now there are still a lot of pieces on the board, so it's not a walk in the park for the Black king; I'm just saying it's not as dire as things can be with the ladies still around.

This particular position still has certain problems for Black (which is one reason why `3. ... d6` isn't the best choice); for instance, the king having been pulled to d8 means that the f-pawn is undefended, so with something like `6. Bc4` White develops the bishop, and the Black either must waste a tempo moving the king back to defend the f-pawn, or play `6. ... Be6` to defend the pawn, allowing White the chance to give Black doubled, isolated pawns by `7. Bxe6 fxe6`. That's not the end of the world, and in this kind of position those pawns do at least help control some central squares. The main point: Black will probably end up with some structural problems, or lag behind in development for a bit, but this is better than the alternative.

Losing a pawn isn't the end of the world either, it's true, but here it's much closer. After `5. ... Nxd8 6. Nxe5`, White is a clear pawn up without any compensating factors in Black's favor; in fact White has a lead in development as well. This is something Black definitely shouldn't allow, especially since we really are getting toward the realm of the endgame, where having an extra pawn is of crucial importance. Going this route puts White in the enviable situation of "playing for two results," meaning that from here either a White win or a draw are nearly certain, with a loss for White being very unlikely (barring a big mistake later of course). That's one of the worst things Black can do to herself in the opening.
> 13 votes

# Answer
Often losing the right to castle is OK for Black if queens are of the board. Take the Berlin Defense for example:

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
[StartPly "16"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8

```

Kramnik used this opening to win the title from Kasparov in 2000.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Capture with the king and hang on to the pawn. The value of the "right" to castle is greatly reduced after queens are exchanged. If it goes into an early "endgame" (with the exchange of a couple more pieces), having the king in the middle of the board would even be an advantage.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, scotch-game
---


# Question
Title: Why do many team championships have only 4 boards?
Team championships in my area have 10 boards per side. Board arrangements have to follow the Elo ranking to avoid tactical arrangements (such as putting a very weak player against the other team's star to try to have more strength in other boards). I think that a team of 10 is representative of the strength of a team as a whole.

Why many national or international team tournaments have merely 4 players? Even if they are cheaper, they are not really representative of anything because just hiring a couple of strong players boosts the team strength, so what's the point of these tournaments with only 4 players (Olympics included)?

# Answer
> 9 votes
To be concrete, I'll focus on the Olympiad; the same ideas apply more generally.

So, the more boards we have on each team, the more representative the match will truly be of the respective populations. Now 4 players is indeed a small sample, but I am curious, what would your response be to someone who might pose the further question:

> "Why would a team championship have only 10 boards? That's not really representative of anything. I think that 20 boards would more appropriately represent the team's true strength."

We could of course push the same idea further and further. In principle, the only limiting factor for the number of boards would be the population of the smallest country participating, but of course things would become logistically impractical well before that.

Whatever you think of my turning your own question around at you, I think the gist of a simple answer lies in the last thing I said: different countries have vastly different sizes. If you want to have an elite team event that all countries can realistically compete in, you just can't have all that many boards. Russia would be happy to make it a 50-board competition, since they have a large population that is as chess-loving as any in the world. (According to the current live ratings at 2700chess, 12 of the top 43 players in the world are Russian.) But doing so would mean that far fewer countries have any real shot at doing at all well in the event; the caliber of player that, say, Israel would have to put on a Board 10 would be well below what Russia would be putting up.

Even with 4-person teams, only a handful of countries have done much medaling historically. But note that my example small country, Israel, got a silver medal in 2008 and a bronze in 2010. Things like that just wouldn't be possible with many more boards in play.

---
Tags: tournament
---


# Question
Title: In speed chess (especially bullet), are dirty tactics tolerated more?
In bullet chess, well, it's frantic. And sometimes I find myself making dubious checks just to gain time. Or funny gambits. But it feels unbefitting of the royal game.

Is bullet chess bad for the overall chess community's reputation?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Bullet chess and speed chess are different sorts of games; they favor those with more talent. The clock is an integral part of the game. Use it. Embrace it.

And no, it isn't any worse for the community than bughouse or any other insane variant.

# Answer
> 7 votes
In my opinion chess and bullet chess are a kind of sport or competition. Everything what happens on the board is legitimate, if it is according to the rules. There is no such thing as an evil or devious move. You may play risky, repeat moves or do moves for "psychological" reasons. If the opponent thinks there is something wrong with that she or he needs to show it by playing better.

Sometimes player continue playing a drawn position, because their opponent runs out of time and they hope that the opponent will blunder. That is fine, since time is part of the game. Anand won a game against Gelfand in this way in last world championship

---
Tags: etiquette, bullet-chess
---


title: Rivals to the FIDE

text:
# Question
Title: Rivals to the FIDE
Though the PCA and the Classical Chess Championship have failed, the wish to reform, dethrone or replace the FIDE evidently remains strong, at least in some quarters of the chess world. Some suggest that the present FIDE leadership remains entrenched with little authentic support. I lack personal knowledge of the matter, but the press one reads does seem pretty one-sided, does it not? The press seems implicitly to concur in the *premise* (never mind the finding) that the FIDE were crooked. The FIDE's present regime could be excellent for all I know but, if a credible defense of it exists, the defense does not seem to be appearing in any language I can read, nor am I aware of it.

If this is correct, then conditions would *seem* to be ripe for the rise of a new organization to contest the FIDE's authority. However, I know of none such. Is there such a new organization? Is any serious effort in planning or underway to reform, dethrone or replace the FIDE?

> To be clear, I am not asking whether the FIDE is a good organization or a bad one, but rather whether and in what way a credible alternative does or soon might exist.

# Answer
One body which isn't exactly an alternative to FIDE now, but could perhaps become so down the road depending on how the future plays out, is the Association of Chess Professionals (not to be confused with Kasparov's Professional Chess Association, mentioned in the question). It is basically a global union for any folks working in chess - players, organizers, journalists, and so on - rather than some sort of governing body like FIDE. So in this sense it is in no way a competitor to FIDE; nevertheless, it can act as something of a counterweight to FIDE, much as players' unions in other sports keep their governing bodies in check (e.g. the MLBPA and Major League Baseball).

The ACP has grown in stature, at least somewhat, since its initial inception in 2003. Former ACP president GM Joel Lautier said the following in 2005,

> Some time ago it seemed that such collaboration \[between ACP and FIDE\] could indeed be possible, but at present FIDE avoids any contact with us, does not respond to our mails, and we don't expect any positive changes of the situation.

Contrast this with FIDE recently giving the ACP a seat at the table, agreeing to make them a part of FIDE's decision-making process. Whether or not such an agreement actually means very much I certainly don't know. But it does demonstrate that FIDE now considers the ACP to be a body to reckon with, which implies that the ACP is gaining enough heft to potentially be an agent for change where FIDE is concerned, either from within or without.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: fide, kasparov, karpov
---


# Question
Title: Are there statistics on the frequency of tactical motifs?
I was taking a look at the tactical motifs on chess tempo and I was curious to know which motifs are encountered most often and which motifs are encountered the least? Are their statistics for this?

# Answer
I'm going to suppose that compiling this sort of data would be nearly impossible because the question is, while it seems very specific, is actually far too broad. As a database developer I face these kinds of scenarios very often. One of my special favorites is just the idea of a date and time. It seems so simple but the second you start to really look at it you see it is in fact very deep and has many facets.

Let's start breaking this apart. 1. We assume you mean in Grand Master level games only. 2. Do you consider only tactical motifs that actually occur in the game or do you consider positions that are directly threatened? These positions would actually be highly important for study because even though they do not occur in the actual game, both players needed to consider them. 3. If you consider positions that do not actually occur over the board, how deep in the analysis do you go? 4. Do you consider tactical motifs that are standard operations like a simple pin or do you only consider tactical motifs used in a combination? 5. Do you consider tactical motifs that occur in any combination or only those that actually work? 6. If you only consider those in combinations that work, what do you mean by "work"?

You see where I am going with this. There are so many things that need to be considered before the data can actually be transformed into something informative that it becomes impractical. This should not really be surprising for a topic that chess players through the centuries have had a difficult time defining: what is a tactic? What is a combination? Is a combination just a set of forcing moves even if it leaves the position exactly equal? What if it leaves the player who initiated it weaker? It's like the US supreme court justice said. We might not be able to define it, but we "know it when we see it." But that sort of definition doesn't help us transform a mass of data into actual information.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I think Robert Kaucher's answer addresses some of the difficulties in finding an objective answer, but I'll do my best at a subjective answer based on my own game play:

In slow tournament games, pins and forks are far and away the most common tactical motifs. Skewers are a distant third. To be clear, I am lumping double attacks in with forks (i.e. threaten mate and a loose piece with one move to win a piece).

In my games, forks don't usually appear on the board because my opponents don't usually miss a one move knight fork, for example. The threat of forks often dictates moves though, and one side or the other will use these threats to make some positional improvement. Double attacks are slightly different. In one of my slow games this month I was able to win the exchange from this position:

> *1. Nd5!* wins due to *1... Nxd5?? 2. Qxh7#* The game went *1... e4 2. Nxc7 exd3 3. Nxa8*

I find that double attacks are usually only threats as well, but since they are usually more complicated to "see" over the board, the actual tactic happens in the game more frequently.

Pins, however, are fairly common. Players are much more likely to allow a pin (at least temporarily) because there is usually not an immediate loss of material.

As a final note, in games between lower rated players and in online blitz games (usually lower quality than slow chess games), forks and pins are still the most common, but they are executed on the board more frequently as opposed to just being threatened. I think this is because one player simply misses the threat and allows it to happen.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: statistics, tactics
---


# Question
Title: How should white continue after 5...Qf6 in the Scotch Game?
I have been playing the `Scotch` main line every chance I get. I have had a pretty good success rate with it, but I feel this is due to the my opponent not having a complete understanding of the `Scotch`. My play usually goes something like this:

```
 [fen ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4

```

After this, I rarely encounter the classical move `4...Bc5`. Most of the time, black will play `5...Nxd4` followed by `6. Qxd4` and I usually find myself in a pretty good position here. However, so far I have never encountered the moves `4...Bc5`, `5. Nxc6 Qf6 (threating mate)`

It is this position that gives me most trouble, I know that my knight on `c6` is lost because of the mate threat, so what is white's best move(s) if play continues with `5...Qf6`. I have found it very difficult for white to recover from this, especially since black has more development

# Answer
> 13 votes
First, I'd note that the most popular move after `4... Bc5` (according to the game databases of both Chess Tempo and Chess Games) is actually `5. Be3`, and I suppose there's an argument to be made that it's both the more ambitious and the more principled move because it attempts to maintain control and/or occupation of the d4 square rather than immediately ceding it. In those main lines, Black is generally seeking to play a freeing `...d5` pawn break, when White's center is either liquidated or White is forced to push his pawn to `e5` (typically supported by a pawn on `f4`), creating a structure where Black must blockade and aim to attack the head of the White f4-e5 chain while White seeks to bolster and ultimately advance it.

It's typical of most variations in the Scotch that Black gets a slight lead in development in exchange for White's superior pawn structure and has to use piece play (combined with timely pawn breaks like `...d5`) to avoid the dreaded "Scotch ending" where White has a mobile king-side pawn majority while Black's queen-side pawns can be blockaded (due to the pawn doubling that normally takes place on the c-file in many lines).

In the line that you specifically refer to, the only two common and respectable continuations are either `6. Qd2` or `6. Qf3`. (I have seen `6. Qe2` played, presumably with the idea of not blocking the dark-square bishop and intending on castling queen-side, but it's comparatively rare and, statistically, its practical success rate looks abysmal.) Of these, I've always preferred `6. Qf3`, precisely because it doesn't impede White's development in the way that `6. Qd2` does by blocking the dark-square bishop.

In those variations, if Black does capture on `f3` (which he almost always does relatively quickly, except in the lines with `6... Qxc6`, which are the least common), White's pawn structure is not as compromised as it might superficially appear after the obligatory g-pawn recapture, and in fact gives White a solid central presence and open files and diagonals for his pieces. Those lines lead to relatively standard endgames where the dark-square bishops also normally get traded very quickly and White seems to do well. `6... Qxc6`, which is rare, may be a good reply, where Black again aims for a `...d5` pawn break and extremely symmetrical positions arise in which piece play dominates and major strategic themes don't particularly present themselves with any force or consistency.

If none of this sounds appealing, the only other (semi-)respectable way to play the Scotch is as a gambit line with `4. Bc4`, appropriately but boringly called the "Scotch Gambit." Notably, this was recommended in the book *Chess Openings For White, Explained*. Unfortunately, none of the major lines are particularly forcing, and if Black is reasonably familiar with classical open games, he can transpose into lines of either the Giuoco Piano or the Two Knights Defense where he returns the pawn and easily equalizes (in fact, I'd say Black has a more pleasant position in the best of the Two Knights Defense lines than White does).

---
Tags: opening, scotch-game
---


# Question
Title: How is chess viewed in USSR vs Post-USSR?
I was reading the following wikipedia article on Mark Taimanov and I was very shocked (I guess I shoudn't be knowing how the Soviets took chess so seriously) that when Taimanov lost to Fischer 6-0 , the Soviet Government was embarrassed and found it "unthinkable" that he could lose a match so badly to an American, so they ended up taking away his salary and did not let him travel overseas. Later, they "forgave" saying the reason for punishment was that he brought a book by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn into the country, but from the article, I guess many speculate that Fischer's defeat of Bent Larsen 6-0 probably had more to do with the Soviet government "forgiving" Taimanov. So in a nutshell, do these things types of things still happen, not just with the countries that used to be a part of the USSR, but in other parts of the world? This maybe difficult to answer, because I guess if it did happen, it would be kept very secretive?

# Answer
Authoritarian governments will punish its representatives who do not live up to the standards they set.

Iraq - Saddam later appointed Uday head of the Iraqi Olympic committee and soccer federation, and ... tortured athletes who failed to win.

China - Players that towed the party line and upheld Marxist values were rewarded. Those that didn’t were punished.

Bear in mind, these standards are not necessarily reasonable or attainable.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: history, famous-players
---


title: Practical study for a former player?

text:
# Question
Title: Practical study for a former player?
I played quite often in the mid 80's to mid 90's. My highest rating OTB was low 1300's (Edited, I had thought I reached 1415, but not according to USCF site-although that doesn't include my high school stuff in the 80's) under the USCF, with somewhat desultory study habits, although I did do a lot of reading on general tactics, pawn structures and some theory. Two best results were a round upset prize at the Western Open, and a $3000 check in the U1300 at the tournament in Vegas in December (Forgot the name).

I have been getting interested in playing again, and started looking at what is out there, and I'm a bit overwhelmed with the tools that are available now.

Where should I start? I'm probably way beyond most "pawns move one or two squares" beginner books, but probably not up to speed on even intermediate books, I vaguely remember bits of a couple openings, etc.

And, what openings should I concentrate on learning first, that will allow me to expand? IIRC, I played Scotch, French and was toying with the Indian openings.

I tried to phrase this so as not to encourage open ended debate, and I don't think it quite fits the suggested questions already existing. If it still is deemed too broad, make a couple suggestions and I can edit for fit.

# Answer
I am going to make a few suggestions on reading material.

Pay a visit to Dan Heisman's column at Chess Cafe called the Novice Nook. Pay special attention to what he writes on the topic of Real Chess (article 1 and article two).

Focus as much as you can on this "Real Chess" idea in your studies and games. Always remember you will play the way you train. Therefore put a lot of training into proper over-the-board analysis. A book like Practical Chess Exercises can be useful for this as it has a mixture of tactical and positional positions so you are never certain if you should be looking for a forced sequence or a positional idea.

Honestly I would not spend a ton of time studying the openings. But software like Chess Position Trainer can help you a lot. As far as which ones, stick with the ones you enjoyed in the past and learn new ones that you see in your studies.

For literature I think Ludek Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy is probably one of the first books you should read. I also really like Silman's Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner To Master for fundamental endgame theory that is highly practical.
> 7 votes

# Answer
First, what is your goal? If it's just to have fun, don't do anything but attend your local chess club and play in tournaments.

If your goal is to improve (1500 would be a fine goal) then new learning is needed.

I recommend you get a chess engine (program) running. There are free ones that work fine, especially on the PC. The reason is that you can use this to take your games apart to see where you made mistakes. I took one of mine apart some time ago only to find I missed winning a piece and totally busting a 1900+ player. Instead, I lost the game.

Another recommendation is for you to find an instructor. You only need an A-player (1800-1999) or expert (2000-2199), and these are easy to find. According to the ratings, you don't have an appreciable chance of defeating either, so I would think that they'll be able to help you.

Finally, you can play online for free at chess.com.

Between playing a lot, using a computer, and taking lessons, plus typical online (free) resources, you should have enough to keep you busy.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, theory
---


title: Prophylactic defenses

text:
# Question
Title: Prophylactic defenses
I'm a beginner and I haven't gotten into memorizing games. I don't like the idea of memorizing but now I think I have to learn a few to get to a higher level. Can someone give me a list of prophylactic defenses that a beginner should learn. Taking into account the basics like the control of the center, early development of minor pieces et cetera.

I don't play aggressive. I like building up positions (prophylaxis). I need a few defenses that are an answer to most openings and doesn't block my minor pieces. Maybe I'm being naive?

# Answer
You're not being naive.

It sounds like you're a positional player. You'll probably favor closed games. Closed games are ones where there are pawns in the center, reducing the long-range power of many of the pieces on the board.

Too much memorization is unhelpful. You will need to memorize a a few openings, and not too deeply. As long as you understand what the openings are trying to accomplish and you know basic principles you'll be fine.

For openings, play `1. d4`, and work through some main lines of the Queen's Gambit. From this link, you'll see that your play won't change much for the first few moves; there's a theme.

If you're on the black side of the board, you have more choices. You'll probably see `1. e4` more than `1. d4`. For the latter, look at the 'closed game' and similar:

```
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5 Be7
5. e3 O-O
6. Nf3 Nbd7

```

See how black avoids lines where the center pawns get traded off?

Against `1. e4` you'll be looking for the same thing - lines that leave the pawns on the board or at least, like this Caro-Kann, leave a solid position:

```
1. e4 c6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 dxe4
4. Nxe4 Bf5
5. Ng3 Bg6
6. h4 h6
7. Nf3 Nd7
8. h5 Bh7
9. Bd3 Bxd3

```

Here's a link for a plethora of e4 openings.

Which opening to pick? Narrow down the field by examining games of Anatoly Karpov, Tigran Petrosian, Aron Nimzovitch, and Mikhail Botvinnik. Nimzovitch is the godfather of the 'prophylactic' style you describe. You might get a copy of 'My System', one of the first books to collect, state, and explain the principles of positional play. Be advised this book (and many others) are old and were written using the now-obsolete 'descriptive' notation. You probably want your copies to be in algebraic or figurine algebraic notation. If you buy a copy off of e-bay etc you should verify what you're getting.
> 8 votes

# Answer
I think playing `1... c6` against just about any move by White would be a good example of a prophylactic defense. Against either `1. e4` or `1. d4` if White follows on with advancing the other center pawn on move 2, you can follow on with `2... d5`, the Caro-Kann defence, albeit in the case of the move order `1. d4 c6 2. e4 d5` the defense has been reached by transposition, the normal move order being `1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5`.

In any case see the Wikipedia page.

The `1. d4` player will probably be more inclined to respond to `1... c6` with `2. c4`, in which case following on with `2... d5` gives you the Slav Defense (see Wikipedia).

I believe these lines meet your qualifications of "defenses that are an answer to most openings and doesn't block my minor pieces".
> 6 votes

# Answer
The Petroff Defense (`1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6`) is a very defensive opening that tends to limit White's chances.

Playing against `d4`, I like `...Nf6`, because it gives me the choice of either transposing into a Queen's Gambit, or playing an Indian (fianchetto) defense.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, defense
---


# Question
Title: Options for breaking the Giuoco Pianissimo wide open?
I don't like the `Giuoco Pianissimo`

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4  e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Bc5
4. d3

```

because I find it very slow and boring. The cramped center and overall board make me want to just resign, so as black how can I avoid the `Giuoco Pianissimo` as black if white plays `4.d3` (Although I guess this is not actually possible if white does play `4.d3`),so instead, what are my options for basically blowing up the center and creating a wide open game after `4.d3`?

# Answer
After `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc5 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3`, you could continue with `4. ... Nf6` and aim to follow this up with an immediate `5. ... d5` if you want to open the center. For instance, play could proceed with `5. O-O d5 6. exd5 Nxd5 7. Nc3 Nxc3 8. bxc3 O-O`, and you would have a rather open game.

But White need not allow this, and would likely instead play the natural `5. Nc3`, bringing us into the Italian Four Knights, and stalling the idea of a `... d5` push by Black. The thing here is, White has concentrated a lot of attention on the d5 square precisely so that it is difficult for Black to play this freeing `... d5` move, which would immediately relieve Black of any hint of a cramped position. Black would now need to do some prep work in order to make this central advance happen, if that is what she wants. She might play e.g. `O-O, d6, Be6` first, so that the move `... d5` is properly supported. Of course White will be playing his own moves in the meantime, and if he wants to keep things quiet for a while, he can often make it so that Black can only upset this at her own peril. But with the sort preparatory moves I've indicated, ultimately White cannot prevent you from getting `... d5` in and opening things up in a safe way.

I'm going to speak below to something more general that your question brings to mind, as it might be useful. Feel free to ignore if not, though.

---

One point worth making here is that some games just will be, to use your words, more "slow and boring" than others will. It's all well and good to prefer more open, dynamic, active games. But it can be a bad idea to insist upon a "faster" and more open game if doing so means recklessly putting oneself in danger, and it often can mean just that. An alternative approach (and one that will go far in leading you out of your beginner phase) is to try to see the slower, more closed phases of your games as not so boring after all, and realize that a lot can be going on "under the hood," so to speak. (Besides, the moves you play during "slower" phases are crucial to your success/failure once the position does open up.)

To illustrate this idea (very lightly), suppose our game proceeded, after `5. Nc3`, by `5. ... h6 6. Be3 Bb6 7. O-O O-O 8. Nd5 d6 9. a4 Nxd5 10. Bxd5`, and Black, desperate to open the game via an `... f5` push, plays `10. ... Kh8` in order to get out of the pin from the bishop on d5. White responds with `11. Qd2`, and we have the following position:

So far, a pair of knights has been exchanged, but all the pawns (and everything else) are still on the board, and things have indeed been rather closed and quiet. *This doesn't mean interesting things haven't been happening*, and in particular, White has developed his pieces well so that it *still* isn't a good idea for Black to try and open the position without further preparation: `11. ... f5?` is met harshly by `12. Bxh6`, which wins a pawn because of `12. ... gxh6?? 13. Qxh6#`. Instead, Black could play `11. ... Bxe3 12. fxe3 f5`, and she has finally achieved the kind of opening of the position that she has been after.

My main point: sometimes one simply must be patient in chess, or else accept the consequences. Wanting to blast open the position only because, well, you always want to blast open the position, is going to lead you into a lot of trouble and missed opportunities. Sometimes you will find yourself in positions where it would be to your objective advantage to keep the position closed (maybe your opponent has a very cramped position that will ultimately prove fatal), but if you were to always blindly favor opening the game up, you would miss out on that kind of winning approach - or worse, you'll open yourself up to the kind of punishment illustrated above - and you will ultimately have worse results than you rightly should. Just something to keep in mind as you continue to explore the game.
> 5 votes

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


# Question
Title: Is it common to reverse the rank and file in chess notation?
I was watching an episode of Sesame Street that had to do with playing chess. In a short film, there is a chess master that was going over some moves with school kids and I remember one of the kids said something like `7f Queen` to `3g`. This threw me off because the rank and file were reversed. I am used to hearing `Qf7` to `g3`. Is reversing the rank and file common or is this more of an isolated incident?

# Answer
> 5 votes
It's not common (I've never heard of it), and it's certainly not an official notation. Without further information, I have no idea why the chess master would have accepted the strange notation. Perhaps he didn't think it worthwhile to argue at the time.

Edit: as Tony Ennis notes, the notation for shogi is quite similar to what you are describing.

> The method used in English-language texts to express shogi moves was established by George Hodges in 1976. It is derived from the algebraic notation used for chess, but differs in several respects. It is not used in Japanese-language texts, as it is no more concise than kanji.
>
> A typical move might be notated **P-8f**. The first letter represents the piece moved: P for Pawn. (There is also **L** lance, **N** knight, **S** silver, **G** gold, **B** bishop, **R** rook, **K** king, as above.) Promoted pieces are indicated by a + in *front of* the letter: **+P** is a tokin (promoted pawn).
>
> \[...\] For example, the start of a game might look like this:

```
1. P-7f   2. P-3d
3. P-2f   4. G-3b
5. P-2e   6. Bx8h+
7. Sx8h   8. S-2b

```

Perhaps that is what the child was thinking of.

---
Tags: notation
---


# Question
Title: In the immortal draw, why is the Queen sac 9...Qxa4+ considered the best move?
After White's first nine moves in the Immortal Draw:

```
[FEN ""]
[title "Hamppe-Meitner, Vienna"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Na4 Bxf2+ 4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5.Ke3 Qf4+ 6.Kd3 d5 7.Kc3 Qxe4 8.Kb3 Na6 9.a3

```

Why is `9...Qxa4+` the best move here? Doesn't Black have an advantage with White's King on the third rank? What hidden (from me, anyway) resource does White have that causes the Queen sacrifice to be necessary?

# Answer
> 4 votes
In the diagram position, White has an extra bishop, and as compensation Black has both two extra pawns and, as you mention, prospects for an attack based on the fact that the white king is out in the open on the third rank. If White can secure the king, though, then his extra bishop will mean more in the long run than the two pawns, and White will be doing much better.

With his last move, `9. a3`, White is threatening to do precisely that, as he as opened a retreat path for his king to make use of (once he takes care of the fact that his a4 knight would be hanging at the moment). Thus if Black were to make some nothing move, e.g. `9. ... h6?`, then play could proceed with something like `10. Nc3 Qf5 11. Ka2` (though here White doesn't even need to be in a hurry rushing his king back, and could do something more productive instead) and White is just cruising.

In broad strategic terms, Black must act quickly to take advantage of the dynamic factors currently in his favor (White's exposed king and lack of development), or White's long-term static plus (extra material) will win the day. `9. ... Qxa4+` does exactly that, giving up (much) more material, but in return forcibly drawing the white king further out into the open, where it turns out Black has enough firepower in reserve to draw with a perpetual check.

One could try other ninth moves for Black of course, but again the point is that matters are urgent: something must be done now about White's consolidating idea of `Nc3 -> Ka2`, and there's only so many moves that have potential. `9. ... d4` keeps the knight from c3, but it also removes the attack on the knight, so White can play `10. Ka2` immediately. Instead `9. ... Be6` is a nice thought, with the idea of discovered check by `10. ... d4+` keeping the white king out in the open; but unfortunately `10. d4!` in reply stops that idea and leaves White firmly in control. (Incidentally, if White had gone ahead and played `9. d4` instead of his `9. a3`, he would have already killed off the attack and had a big advantage, but then we wouldn't have the Immortal Draw.)

I could go on, but I think the above spells out the exigency of Black's situation. If you're still curious from here why `9. ... Qxa4+` is the way to go, the best thing to do is probably some concrete analysis, toying around with possible variations starting from the diagram position above (with a trusty engine looking over your shoulder).

# Answer
> 6 votes
Where has it been mentioned that `9... Qxa4+` is the best move? but considering the alternatives it is the move that has made the game immortal, suppose black would have just followed up by playing positional chess only and managed to win, the game would have become just a case of positional example and hardly immortal. The rest of the game was not easy for white, number of times a playing a logical move would have lost white the game.

# Answer
> 4 votes
`Qxa4+` successfully pulls the King out of the white position, and after `Nc5+` there is no way back. In the following moves white had to play *very* precisely to avoid loss (sometimes crazy looking moves like `14. Bc6`).

See this link for an analysis.

---
Tags: analysis, sacrifice, queens
---


# Question
Title: Where can I get a reliable and user-friendly, but not extravagant, chess clock?
I'm looking for a reliable and user-friendly chess clock, but I don't want to spend $50 (under $25 would be preferable). I'm not sure whether analog or digital would be better for me - so one question is: what are the pros and cons of each? Also, if possible, I'd like it to show seconds, even for a couple-hour game. If that's not possible, then at least for the last ten minutes or so. What type or brand should I pay attention to?

Edit: I've found a couple clocks I'd probably be interested in - one is the cheapest analog clock I could find: a Chezmate precision quartz clock for $20.99, and the other is the cheapest digital one - for $32.90. I'd like to know if the analog one will be all I'll need, or whether it'll be worth it to go for a digital one. The digital one seems to have a few more features, but basically, in terms of durability and reliability, which would be better for the price?

# Answer
I just saw you asked this couple of months back but adding my answer if others are looking for something in this price-range.

Do you have an iPhone? There are chess-clock apps which are pretty good. This is only for home games, as you don't want the other player scratching too much on your iPhone screen.

You should also search eBay. They are the best bet for low-prized yet pretty good digital chess clocks. Don't buy the cheap analog clocks as they have inherent problems and I have thrown away couple of them before switching to digital clocks. Always compare prices at Amazon before bidding on eBay.

Note: Digital clocks outweigh the cheap analog clocks by miles for under $25.

1. Pleasing displays
2. Lots of options for your game (e.g. extra seconds added for each move if you want it).
3. More lifetime than analog clocks at this price range (fewer mechanical problems).
4. Their only drawback is they need batteries.
5. Some digital clocks require little knowledge of how to set the clocks, but reading the manual helps and it is not very complicated.

Lots of good digital chess clocks on eBay (used/new; make sure it is listed as working) and Amazon. Good Luck.
> 5 votes

# Answer
If you intend to play with any advanced time controls, the digital clocks are better or perhaps necessary. For example, some blitz time controls don't start counting down until a few extra seconds pass. That is, if you play quickly, you don't run out of time. This isn't possible with analog clocks.

I have the cheapest analog clock and it's fine for normal tournament play, as far as I can tell.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: chess-clocks, equipment
---


# Question
Title: How do I use the analysis output of a UCI engine?
I'm trying to analyze some of my games with the Stockfish UCI engine. I'd like to make sure I'm interpreting the output correctly. Using this screenshot as an example.

Can someone explain to me all of the output? Such as.

What does this line tell me?

> 20 \[-1.13\] 7.c3 Bg4 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 bxa4 (8.39)

What does this line tell me?

> \[-1.33\] Depth: 27/40 Nodes: 550933K (4130 kn/s) Time: 133.41 s NPS: 4129627 Hash: ---- Load: ---- TB hits: ---- Current: c3 (1/25)

If the first number is centipawns why does it continue to analyze positions that seem to give me a worse position?

# Answer
It is showing you the results of the analysis for each depth it gets to, sometimes more than once per depth (I think those are upper/lower bound scores, actually). So at depth 20 it thought the best move was -1.13 pawns, and at depth 27 it now knows it's really -1.33 pawns (according to its evaluation).

I like to use the multi-pv setting (click the up spinner next to V++ to increase the number of root moves to analyze), which gives you a good overall perspective of your different options (you can compare `c3` and `Nc3`, for example).
> 6 votes

---
Tags: analysis, engines, uci
---