# Question
Title: Has anyone had positive results using the Ruy Lopez Norwegian variation nightingale gambit?
There is a variation of the Ruy lopez that I have recently played and made two sacrifices and ended up with a very good game, and I wanted to know if anyone else could or have tried it? Here is the move order:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 b5
5. Bb3 Na5 6. Bxf7+

```

Then the continuation that was played was

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 b5
5. Bb3 Na5 6. Bxf7+ Kxf7 7. Nxe5+ Ke8 8. Qh5+ g6
9. Nxg6

```

and black resigned. This was all played with a 2+0 time control so I saw this nice little gambit.

# Answer
4. ... b5 is quite uncommon in the Ruy Lopez. I was initially sceptical, but the gambit seems to be quite interesting, or at least not easily refutable. On amateur level, it seems to score pretty well, if you have a look at for example the database on lichess. However, amongst stronger players in long games black scores significantly more points. I would definitely try it in Blitz, but not in a long game. Ultimately, it seems, it's objectively at least equal or worse for the sacrificing party (as with almost every gambit).

My evaluation:

* little practical utility (literally nobody plays 4. ... b5, at least on my level)
* unsound
* probably fun at blitz
> 3 votes

# Answer
7...Ke8?? is a blunder for black. Instead, 7...Ke7!? is a much better try with the idea of weathering the attack with moves like ...Nf6 ...d6 and ...Qe8 (not necessarily in that order). Hard to prove that white is winning.
> 5 votes

# Answer
5...Na5 is interesting and it's hard for White to refute. Both 6. Nxe5 and 6. Bxf7+ are tempting options, but the best move is simply castling with 6. 0-0. White's plan is to push in the center with d4, and Black's Knight is missed on c6.

Sample line after 6. 0-0:

6...Nxb3 7. axb3 d6 (Black must protect the now undefended e5-pawn) 8. d4! exd4 9. Nxd4 (threatening to take on b5 due to the a-file pin) Bb7 10. Re1.

At this point, White has a nice edge. He has a good lead in development, and the Knight on d4 can jump to the f5-square at any point. While Black does have the two Bishops, his cramped position with barely any pieces out does not give him enough.

MVL recently played 5...Na5 in a rapid game though, so it's definitely a viable move. I doubt most people could find 6. 0-0 over the board if they hadn't studied the line previously.
> 1 votes

# Answer
WHITE CAN PLAY STRONGER! Thus, the newest chess opening theory ( https://jeromegambit.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-nightingale-gambit-etc-c70-c20-c60.html ) shows that after 6.Bxf7+!? Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Ke7! 8.Nf7! Kxf7 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qd5+ Kg7 11.Qxa8 Nc6 12.c3! N (Bukayev Yu. V.) the position is unclear. Here Yury V. Bukayev considered also 11...Qg5!? N and found that White has an enough success here too!
> 1 votes

---
Tags: gambits, ruy-lopez, sacrifice
---


title: Depth vs breadth of opening knowledge

text:
# Question
Title: Depth vs breadth of opening knowledge
When searching the web about how people learn about chess openings, I see many questions regarding the depth of the opening knowledge one has (with answers such as "I know some lines 20 moves deep") but a *line* is just a sequence of moves not a tree of possible moves.
This leads me to the following question : what is the best tradeoff between learning some lines really deep vs learning many variations but not as deep? How does one decide what lines should be learnt deeper?

# Answer
> 8 votes
> what is the best tradeoff between learning some lines really deep vs learning many variations but not as deep?

There are several cut-offs you can use:

1. Cut short the depth in a particular line when it becomes "calm". So, both sides have developed and there are no immediate tricky tactics.
2. As a first cut on breadth, make sure you include critical lines which have tactics which you need to know to survive. Do this even if they are relatively unpopular. You don't want your first game in that variation to be a quick loss.
3. For less critical lines cut short the breadth according to popularity, unless you particularly like an unpopular line. In general you get the most benefit by studying the most popular lines first because they are the ones you will face the most often. Use a large database to identify these and make a cut-off point in popularity below which you are not going to spend much time. Only study an unpopular line after you have faced it as part of your post-game analysis.
4. Another useful breadth cut-off if you don't have a great deal of time to spend is to do so according to how much your choice limits your opponent's choice. Examples would be: As an e4 player with white against the French only study the Exchange Variation (even though it is less popular) because it allows *you* to limit your opponent's choice of moves and so drastically reduce the amount of learning you have to do. Same argument for playing the Exchange Variation against the Slav.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Chess should be a game of understanding and not of memorization. In large part this is because understanding is a whole lot more fun than memorizing. Memorization has become prominent because it has become seen as necessary at the very top levels, and perhaps it is, but that should not be of concern if you are content with less. And not all that much less; you can be a serious contender for most state championships without keeping abreast of the latest opening theory. It has been said, very properly, that the ONLY purpose of knowing the openings is to enter the middlegame with a playable position.

Brian Towers suggests "cutting off" opening theory when the position has become "calm", but although this is good advice, the position does not always take the same number of moves to do this. Some lines remain unclear after thirty moves, but if you are intimidated by this, do not enter those lines. There are many players, even at world championship level, whose aim, to make an analogy with tennis, is merely to keep the ball in play without aiming for every shot to be a winner (just a little bit tricky). There is no rule saying you have to play the most theoretical lines.

I am reminded of something once said by Bent Larsen, in recommendation of the Nimzoindian defence, that to play for advantage with Black you must first make some concession. And that in his view, giving up a Bishop for a Knight was not such a serious concession to make. This is opening theory at the level of understanding. Read everything you can about it, and enjoy the game.

---
Tags: opening, theory
---


# Question
Title: Are there any moves that humans agree are best which engines cannot see?
Are there any moves from real, preferably reasonably well known games which humans agree are great moves, but which engines cannot see, or, at least, think are weak/average?

Here is an example that I know of (although probably not a great example) from a Kasparov-Topalov game called "Kasparov's Immortal" on chessgames.com. After Topalov played Qd6, Kasparov sacrificed the rook on d4, which Stockfish depth 71, as said in a video by the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Atlanta, still thinks to be just an acceptable move. But it is a move which human players may consider to be extremely creative and very strong.

```
[Title "Kasparov-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee NED, 1/16/1999"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "46"]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 Bg7 5. Qd2 c6 6. f3 b5 7. Nge2 Nbd7 8. Bh6 Bxh6 9. Qxh6 Bb7 10. a3 e5 11. O-O-O Qe7 12. Kb1 a6 13. Nc1 O-O-O 14. Nb3 exd4 15. Rxd4 c5 16. Rd1 Nb6 17. g3 Kb8 18. Na5 Ba8 19. Bh3 d5 20. Qf4+ Ka7 21. Rhe1 d4 22. Nd5 Nbxd5 23. exd5 Qd6 24. Rxd4 cxd4 25. Re7+ Kb6 26. Qxd4+ Kxa5 27. b4+ Ka4 28. Qc3 Qxd5 29. Ra7 Bb7 30. Rxb7 Qc4 31. Qxf6 Kxa3 32. Qxa6+ Kxb4 33. c3+ Kxc3 34. Qa1+ Kd2 35. Qb2+ Kd1 36. Bf1 Rd2 37. Rd7 Rxd7 38. Bxc4 bxc4 39. Qxh8 Rd3 40. Qa8 c3 41. Qa4+ Ke1 42. f4 f5 43. Kc1 Rd2 44. Qa7

```

Are there any moves in well known games which engines don't recommend, but which the best human players would prefer?

# Answer
You may be interested in the chess.com article 10 Positions Chess Engines Just Don't Understand, by NM Sam Copeland. If you don't like reading, there's a video by the author and another video of Hikaru reading through and giving his thoughts.

A frequent theme in these positions are setups with long-term factors that engines are not aware of, in particular closed positions where a human can see it is impossible to make progress, and lengthy maneuvering plans.
> 25 votes

# Answer
I recall an amazing move made by Peter Leko against Vladimir Kramnik, as told by the YouTuber agadmator in a video, published on June 10th 2018, entitled "Invisible to Engines | One Of The Greatest Moves Ever Played". The game can be relayed chessgames.com with notes provided by Raymond Keene.

```
[Title "Vladimir Kramnik-Peter Leko, Classical World Championship Match, Brissago Switzerland, 10/7/2004"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "49"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1 Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15. Re4 g5 16. Qf1 Qh5 17. Nd2 Bf5 18. f3 Nf6 19. Re1 Rae8 20. Rxe8 Rxe8 21. a4 Qg6 22. axb5 Bd3 23. Qf2 Re2 24. Qxe2 Bxe2 25. bxa6 Qd3! 26.Kf2 Bxf3 27. Nxf3 Ne4+ 28. Ke1 Nxc3 29. bxc3 Qxc3+ 30. Kf2 Qxa1 31. a7 h6 32. h4 g4

```

The move in question is Leko's 25... Qd3! Keene's notes summarize it neatly: "The key move which Kramnik and his team had underestimated before the game."

I believe that agadmator's narration, starting at 7:13 on Kramnik's move 24th move, gives enough context for an answer. I have written a transcript.

> "Kramnic immediately played queen captures on e2 and it seems like a winning move and in fact Kramnic had this position on the board before the game. He and his team decided that this was of course winning for White. It's okay, bishop captures on e2 and now b captures on a6. It seems that for the queen the only compensation Kramnic has is this rook, a rook and a nice passed pawn that is ready to go to a7 and a8. So you kind of don't want to allow pawn to a7 and a8 and this is the position I've been talking about. So here bishop captures on a6 is the idea and every engine I've tried give bishop captures on a6. But this is why this game is so famous and this is why this move by Peter Leko is so famous. It's one of the legendary moves played in chess history and I really do want you to pause the video here and try to find this move. Give it a minute or two and if you can afford more give it more. But even if you don't find it or don't really know what to find it then I also invite you to try out your engines. Maybe your engine can help you here because I haven't actually found an engine that can solve this position."
> 11 votes

---
Tags: engines, analysis, famous-moves
---


# Question
Title: What's the etymology behind this chess opening?
This line is called the Brooklyn Variation of Alekhine's Defense:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 Nf6 2. e5 Ng8!?

```

How did it get its name?

# Answer
The power of a Google search reveals: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alekhine%27s\_Defence#Brooklyn\_Variation

> 2...Ng8, undeveloping the knight immediately, was named the "Brooklyn Defence" in honour of his hometown by GM Joel Benjamin, who calls this his "pet line".

Provided reference: Joel Benjamin, American Grandmaster: Four Decades of Chess Adventures, Gloucester Publishers, 2007, p. 167. ISBN 978-1-85744-552-7.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening, terminology
---


title: About unusual forced mates

text:
# Question
Title: About unusual forced mates
Are there 'legitimate' chess positions were say white can force a mate by sacrificing 4 of its pieces in succession one after the other? Can this be done even if white has less material than black?

# Answer
> 4 votes
There are many beautiful sacrificial games out there and if you look at composed position you will find even more sacrificial combinations leading to mate. This is one of the most famous games, Anderssen-Kieseritsky from 1851, called "The immortal game":

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Qh4+ 4.Kf1 b5 5.Bxb5 Nf6 6.Nf3 Qh6
7.d3 Nh5 8.Nh4 Qg5 9.Nf5 c6 10.g4 Nf6 11.Rg1 cxb5 12.h4 Qg6
13.h5 Qg5 14.Qf3 Ng8 15.Bxf4 Qf6 16.Nc3 Bc5 17.Nd5 Qxb2 18.Bd6
Bxg1 {It is from this move that Black's defeat stems. Wilhelm
Steinitz suggested in 1879 that a better move would be
18... Qxa1+; likely moves to follow are 19. Ke2 Qb2 20. Kd2
Bxg1.} 19. e5 Qxa1+ 20. Ke2 Na6 21.Nxg7+ Kd8 22.Qf6+ Nxf6
23.Be7# 1-0

```

There surely are games out there that concur even more exactly to your specifications, but generally sacrificing pieces to mate the enemy king is a normal occurrence in chess games.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Here is another fantastic game in which Black sacrificed all four minor pieces, almost in succession, in order to get a checkmate! I found it on chessgames.com.

```
[Title "Glucksberg-Miguel Najdorf, Warsaw Poland, 1929, ‘The Polish Immortal’"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "25"]

1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e6 4. Nf3 d5 5. e3 c6 6. Bd3 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. Ne2 Nbd7 9. Ng5 Bxh2+ 10. Kh1 Ng4 11. f4 Qe8 12. g3 Qh5 13. Kg2 Bg1 14. Nxg1 Qh2+ 15. Kf3 e5 16. dxe5 Ndxe5+ 17. fxe5 Nxe5+ 18. Kf4 Ng6+ 19. Kf3 f4 20. exf4 Bg4+ 21. Kxg4 Ne5+ 22. fxe5 h5#

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
Here are some problems where White to play can mate in time only by four sacrifices.

The problems' citations are as follows:

Michael Schreckenbach, Opfer-Opfer-Matt, Apr 2006; 1st Thematic Competition Opfer-Opfer-Matt, 3rd Honorable Mention. P1111480

Baldur Kozdon, Opfer-Opfer-Matt Apr 2006, no 254. P1177452

```
[Title "Michael Schreckenbach. #6"]
[fen "8/1p1P4/3RPb2/2B1k2K/r1pNp2R/4p3/6p1/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

1.e7! Bxe7 2. d8=Q Bxd8 3. Re6+ Kd5 4. Re5+ Kxe5 5. Rf4  Kxf4 6. Bd6#

```

---

```
[Title "Baldur Kozdon. #5"]
[fen "k1KN4/pp1p4/6Rp/3pp3/B2B4/6R1/5pr1/2n4q w KQkq - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

1.Ra6! exd4! 2. Ne6 dxe6 3. Bc6 bxc6 4. Rb6 axb6 5. Ra3#

4. ... a5/a6 5. R(x)a6#

```

---
Tags: checkmate, check, forced-move
---


title: Why is Lichess keyboard input opposed?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is Lichess keyboard input opposed?
Several high profile bullet chess players (Andrew Tang, Fritzi\_2003) on Lichess state on their profile they will block anyone who plays with keyboard, presumably using an extension such as Lichess-Keyboard-Input to play moves faster. Why is this so opposed by some players?\* I presume the normal way is dragging pieces on the board, but if people are playing crazy 30 or 15 second games seriously, it would make sense they would want to optimize every movement. The extension is freely available to anyone running a popular browser and while it is more divorced from OTB bullet chess movement, normal mouse play is already different than OTB movement with regards to details like accidentally knocking pieces over, hand movement, and having to hit the timer.

\*Edit by MZ: there is substantial discussion whether keyboard input with this extension should be allowed, some of it with interesting ramifications for all online chess. It focuses on the capability of the extension and objective issues of fairness in gameplay, not on any clannish or social attitudes.

# Answer
> 13 votes
First some background:

An 'input mechanism' is a tool to enact the moves you want to be played on a chessboard. The perfect input mechanism is probably "play whatever move I have in my mind immediately". But is this the *fastest* possible input mechanism? If you don't mind some perversion of the spirit of chess, you can get much faster: "play a random legal move", eschewing the need for you to come up with a move and verify its legality. Where the line is between this and outright computer assistance, "play Stockfish's top move", is unclear. We'll come back to this.

The only input mechanism possible in over-the-board chess is using your hand to move the piece and the same hand to stop his clock (FIDE Laws of Chess Articles 4 and 6). (Any other OTB mechanism, e.g., using your non-dominant hand, is unilaterally disadvantageous, and would be a handicap.) This mechanism is substantially slower than most online chess input mechanisms, simply because of the great distance the hand has to move. Hence the fastest time-controls playable OTB (1m+2 or 2m+1) are much slower than the fastest controls played online (15s+0 and 10s+0). Although we are getting further from the slow ponderous game many of us are used to, success in even the fastest controls correlates primarily with chess skill more than reflexes: the world's best hyperbullet players are Andrew Tang (a GM), Alireza Firouzja (World Top 15 classical player) and Nihal Sarin (a strong 2600+ GM at only 16yo).

### 'Keyboarding' on Lichess

Let's get into specifics. Lichess (like Chess.com) allows a number of input mechanisms -- drag-and-drop with mouse, click on source and target squares with mouse, touch-pad, keyboard input using short algebraic notation. Around one month ago a new recently available extension became available, Lichess-Keyboard-Input, ostensibly with a goal of speeding up input without abuse (see the Github Readme). This extension allows you to press a key to select a piece and then move your mouse over a square. If it's legal to move your piece to that square, the move is enacted.

This, and not the SAN keyboard input (which is slower than a mouse), has been deeply controversial. Proponents argue that those who are 'locked in' to point-and-click simply do not want to be unseated by a new faster mechanism to which adaptation would be necessary. However, it is easy to point to instances of potential abuse using the extension: in particular, in time-scrambles I can eschew the need to verify my moves' legality, since just by pressing a key and moving the mouse around at random it will enact *some* move as long as there exists a possible legal move for that piece. Furthermore, I can play as follows:

1. identify a piece to be moved and hold down the relevant key
2. 'circle' my mouse around the board non-stop

This means I don't need to react to my opponent moving before I move - as soon as, traversing its circle, the mouse finds a legal square, after the opponent's last move, I will move instantly. This means I do not need to check legality, or react to my opponent's move; I can choose a piece and generate an instant random legal move with it, so long as one exists. This is equivalent to an input mechanism 'play a random move with the piece I select' in time-scrambles. And if I choose my King, I can eliminate the need to even avoid capture with the piece selected.

Hence, the opponent of a 'keyboarder' has no option but to checkmate them: winning on time is almost impossible. Empirically, the keyboard extension provides an enormous ELO boost of **100-200** points at 15s+0, the fastest time-control on Lichess, compared to any other input method. But since Andrew Tang and Nihal Sarin win by playing good moves quickly rather than poor moves extremely quickly, they could not enjoy much of this benefit even if they were to adapt to using the extension: no wonder then they resist its use.

The debate rages on how much of the mentioned ELO boost lies in the abusive mechanisms I mentioned, which I think we can agree insult the spirit of chess, and how much is a legitimate advancement thanks to a reasonable and fair new method of inputting moves.

---
Tags: online-chess, lichess, online-blitz, bullet-chess
---


# Question
Title: Can this '+3.9' advantage be converted to a win?
I reached this endgame, which Stockfish 10+ evaluates as `+3.9`, but failed to convert it to a win. I feel that it may be a draw after all. Is that the case?

```
[Title "White to move"]
[FEN "8/8/8/4k1p1/1R3p1P/5P1B/r4K2/8 w - - 8 57"]

```

# Answer
It should be winning:

1.Kg1 Ra1+ (1...gxh4 runs into 2.Re4+, winning the f4-pawn) 2.Bf1 gxh4 3.Rb5+ Kd4 (3...Kf6 4.Rh5, and after Rxh4 it will be easily winning with just the f-pawns on the board) 4.Kf2 Ra2+ 5.Be2. And now White's rook will snag one of Black's pawns.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Lines are no answers, at least if the long run counts ;-)

First of all, it is necessary to know which piece-only endgames are drawn and which are won. RB/R is draw (even if a hell to defend, I'm talking from personal experience on the receiving and dishing end). So, first priority: Don't let the Pf3 drop. Luckily, the wB wears a large "Hands Off" sign. Second, your coordination is lousy. Black has good chances to play his king to e3 (your R will probably make a detour to h4, grabbing the P) and entangle your B and K into defending. Thus, next priority is improving your K and B position, without dropping the P. After that, stuff becomes merely technical (took me ten seconds to calculate in my head how to push the bK off the defense of the Pf4: a typical position after your pieces became active would be Ke4 Re6 Bg4 - Kg3 Rf8, now 1.Rg6 Re8+ 2.Be6+ or 1...~ 2.Bf5), especially as White can always offer a rook trade. After the Pf4 drops, just queen the Pf3. Black has at most a few lame stalemate traps.

That said, *now* that you understand what are the long-term aims, you can put the position into Syzygy (after the h pawn drops) and play out a few concrete lines. For example, to get out of the rut, the computer temporarily plays the R to a3 to defend the Pf3, then (wK is on h3) the bishop from the lousy g2 via f1-d3 to e4, already forcing Black into defense mode. (Note that as Black I will play "better" than the computer in the sense that I choose the most annoying instead of the objectively best line.)
> 4 votes

---
Tags: endgame, evaluation, advantage, rook-and-minor-endgame
---


# Question
Title: What do the c5 and e5 breaks do in the Caro-Kann / Scandi pawn structures?
Here's what I understand about the point of c5 in the French / Advance Caro-Kann pawn structures: if White takes you are very happy, because his e-pawn becomes weak and you get to develop your bishop to a nice active square in one move. Even if he doesn't take, it opens up some breathing room for your pieces, eg. you can play moves like Nc6 and Qb6 to further pressure the d-pawn, eventually play cxd4 to fix the weak pawn on d4 and open up the c-file, etc.

However, I don't understand why it's as desirable in Scandi / Caro-Kann pawn structures where Black has played dxe4. In these structures:

* White has not committed a pawn to e5, so you are not making it weak.
* In most cases you've already developed your bishop to e7 or d6, so it's not like you will be saving a tempo if he captures.
* Also in most cases, you have already played Nd7 so you're not gaining the c6 square for your knight.
* You've already placed c6, so your queen can already access the a5-d8 diagonal.
* If you capture on d4, White can just recapture with a piece without having to worry about the pawn on e5 becoming weak.

So, in concrete terms, what does Black gain from playing c5 in these structures? (And ditto for e5.)

# Answer
You misunderstand the principle reason for playing c5 in the French Defense. It doesn't matter whether or not white has already played e5. It doesn't matter whether or not you have or will soon develop the f8 bishop. You play c5 to attack white's center and in particular the pawn on d4.

It then follows that if white responds to c5 with c3 defending the d4 pawn then you are not in a rush to play cxd4 because you are really just swapping c pawns and yours is slightly better.

If white plays the advance variation then a key black move is f6 to attack the e5 pawn and undermine white's large center.

Exactly the same principles apply to the c5 and e5 breaks in the Caro Kann, Scandinavian and for that matter the Benoni and King's Indian Defence. In all of these openings it is vital for black to attack and undermine white's center else black is likely to get rolled over.
> 5 votes

# Answer
C5 and e5 are the only pawn breaks in the position so it feels like there's not much else for black to do. Usually e5 is harder for black to achieve because white's pieces cover e5 from their natural squares (e.g. Re1, Nf3).

In the Caro/Scandi structure white tends to be slightly better and black's plans mostly aim to equalize the game. As long as white has his pawn on d4, he's the only one having a pawn in the centre. That gives white more space and control of the board. So it makes sense for black to try to exchange his c-pawn for white's central pawn. The resulting 3-3 vs 2-4 pawn formation is fairly drawish but both players have their chances. Usually an extra pawn on the queen side is a very slight endgame advantage for white but in some cases black can try to create a minority attack.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: strategy, pawns, pawn-structure
---


# Question
Title: Saving annotations in chessbase reader 2017
I just downloaded Chessbase reader 2017. The design is wonderful the ability to annotate is very useful. However, unlike SCID vs PC (the software for reading and annotating chess games that I am used to) I can't find any option to **save** the annotation.

I tried `Ctrl + S` after adding some test annotations to a Fischer Taimanov game, but nothing pops up to ask which file to save to, or if the annotations need to be saved in a special chessbase format. I can't even seem to find the save button anywhere.

Is this ability not available? I have downloaded the free version from here: https://en.chessbase.com/pages/download (i don't know if there is a paid version, or if we have to pay to get access to certain features.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is a clue in the name - ChessBase **Reader** 2017.

There are more clues in the Chessbase link you gave:

> With the free ChessBase reader, you can **open** all standard file formats (.cbh, .cbf, .pgn), **play through games** on a stunningly rendered board, **watch ChessBase training videos** and much more

No mention of *writing*. If you could modify games with this then you could create your own Chessbase databases.

Chessbase used to supply a free cut-down version of Chessbase called Chessbase-lite which allowed this up to something like 32,000 games. The last version was in 2009 but that has not been available for many years now. If you want writing capability then you have to pay for the full version.

---
Tags: chessbase
---


# Question
Title: Why did Lichess annotate this as a blunder?
Lichess analysis annotated **4. Nf3??** as a blunder preferring (4. Nc3) (see on Lichess). I am trying to understand the ideas that make this a blunder. At depth 23 with Stockfish 13+ NNEU, both were evaluated at +2.1.

If you push the depth to 28, it begins to show a 0.1 preference for Nc3 over Nf3, but I still don't see how this evaluation disparity resulted in the blunder annotation.

My thoughts:

* **4. Nf3** continues development for White. Castling short becomes an option. Black has no immediate threat with the lone queen and must respond by moving the queen. This gives White the option to develop yet another piece. Black may fall behind in development.
* 4. Nc3 also develops a piece but adds a protector to the e4 pawn which may come under attack after ...d5 .

I see no ideas that lead to a strong preference for one over the other. Am I missing some ideas in this position?

<sub> I realize that +/- 0.1 in an evaluation doesn't really mean a whole lot, but I am genuinely curious to learn if I'm missing an idea in the position.</sub>

<sub> At depth 48, 4.Nf3 and 4.Nc3 are both top moves with equal evaluations </sub>

Edit: A commenter remarked "*I don't believe it did*." I present a screenshot below proving this did occur.

```
[Title "White–Black (10 min) | ECO: B12 Caro-Kann Defense"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "6"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 e6 3. Bd3 Qh4 4. Nf3 Qg4 5. O-O d5 6. Re1 Nf6 7. Nbd2 e5 8. exd5 Nxd5 9. Nxe5 (9. h3 Qe6 10. Rxe5) 9... Qg5 10. Nef3+ Qe7 11. Rxe7+ Bxe7 12. Qe1 O-O 13. Nc4 b5 14. Nce5 Nb4 15. Be4 Bb7 16. Qe3 Nd5 17. Bxh7+ Kh8 18. Qd2 Kxh7 19. Ng5+ Kg8 20. Qd3 Nd7 (20... Bxg5 21. Bxg5) 21. Nxd7 (21. Qh7#) 21... g6 22. Qh3 Nf6 (22... Bxg5) 23. Nxf8 (23. Qh6 Rfd8 24. Nxf6+ Bxf6 25. Qh7+ Kf8 26. Qxf7#) (23. Nxf6+ Kg7 24. Ngh7 g5 25. Bxg5 Kg6 26. g4 Kg7 27. Qh6+ Kh8 28. Nxf8#) 23... Bxf8 24. b3 Re8 25. Bb2 Nh5 26. d5 cxd5 27. c4 bxc4 28. Qc3 Ng7 29. Re1 Rc8 30. bxc4 (30. Qh3 Nh5 31. Qd7 Be7 32. Qxe7 Rf8 33. Qxf8+ Kxf8 34. Nh7+ Kg8 35. Re8+ Kxh7 36. Rh8#) 30... Rxc4 31. Qd3 Rb4 32. Rb1 (32. Qh3) 32... d4 33. Ne4 33... Ra4 33. Ne4 (33. Qh3) 33... Ra4 34. Ra1 (34. Nf6+) 34... Ba6 35. Nf6+ Kh8 36. Qh3+ Nh5 37. Nxh5 gxh5 38. Qxh5+

```

# Answer
> 8 votes
The "blunder" annotation is derived from server-side analysis using a low engine depth, which is usually inaccurate.

# Answer
> 13 votes
Its evaluation drops form +2.3 to +0.0, so it considers it a blunder. Of course this does not match what a human understands as "blunder", but computers are incapable of identifying that.

Your move is a perfectly reasonable one and if that's the biggest type of "blunder" you make in your games, you're on your way to a Grandmaster title.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Obviously 4.Nf3 is far from being a blunder, maybe the best move according to stockfish. You are missing ablsoutely nothing here. Generally these "annotations" should not be taken very seriously, helpful only for absolute starters. I personally dislike them strongly, there are just adding noise to valuable engine output.

Curiously in the early days of chess programming it was extremly seriously believed, that it might be possible to "teach" a CPU to play chess, the same way as a human, who at that time was considered the ultimate high point of intelligence. The chess program Pioneer (https://www.chessprogramming.org/Pioneer) is a prominent example. If you would have such a program, it could be likely modified to produce meaningful explanations. AFAIK unfortunately none of these attempts was even remotely successful so far.

Hence if someone presents you human like annotations without further notice, you can safely assume these are very ad hoc and shallow made, since otherwise it would be some kind of breakthrough and the creators would not miss to point that out.

---
Tags: opening, engines, analysis, caro-kann, blunder
---


# Question
Title: What is the idea behind 2...e6 in some Sicilian lines?
I've learned a bit of the Taimanov and have been playing it with some decent results, although I have not gotten very deep at all into it. Still, it bothers me that even though I've looked at a couple of different books and other resources if someone asks I cannot confidently state why I even play 2...e6. Its definitely nice to have a strong center with control of d5 and an exit for my dark-squared bishop. But this can come at the price of an e5 advance that is often possible and that I find somewhat uncomfortable. Are there other benefits to it that I'm not aware of, or was it originally just about avoiding existing 2...d6 theory?

# Answer
For starters, the e6 pawn controls d5 and f5.

(1) This is great for defensive purposes because a knight landing on d5 or f5 can often ruin black's game completely in the Sicilian. A great example of why we don't play e5 and allow a knight to land on the d5 square would be the Sveshnikov variation. With our pawn on e6, white must find another square (and corresponding plans) to utilize as his or her main focus.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Nd5

```

(2) This is great for attacking purposes because getting in the d5 pawn break can either equalize the game immediately or even give black an advantage.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 {The Kan Sicilian, a sister variation to the Taimanov you say you play} 5. Be3?! Nf6 6. Nc3 Bb4! 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 d5!

```

Even if black is worried about the pawn structure changing with white playing e4-e5 after d5, then he is fine too if he plays Qc7 instead of O-O to cover the e5 square. Regardless of the exact move order, as soon as black gets in the d5 break, then it's black who is slightly better out of the opening, not white.

(3) Lastly, moving the e pawn as early as move 2 is smart simply because it means we are faster to castle kingside. Black has basically already committed to castling kingside by playing the Sicilian, so it makes sense to prepare to castle in that direction as quickly as possible. As we've seen, e6 is a flexible move that we are willing to make for many different reasons, so getting it out of the way immediately isn't giving away our cards of what specifics we'll be playing in the future.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, sicilian-taimanov
---


# Question
Title: What ambiguities remain in the laws of chess?
Let an *ambiguous* rule be defined to be a rule experienced, reasonable, well-informed opponents

* are unsure how to interpret in a circumstance (however unlikely the circumstance may be) that can legally arise during play, or
* are sure how to interpret, except that each opponent interprets the rule oppositely.

Answers to earlier questions (here and here) have found the FIDE's 50-move rule to remain ambiguous *according to the foregoing definition.* I do not say that the rule remains ambiguous according to alternate definitions of ambiguity, but according to the foregoing definition I ask: is the 50-move rule the sole remaining such plausible ambiguity in the FIDE's laws of chess, or are there others?

If there are others, what are they, please?

**FACTS VERSUS OPINION**

To clarify, I do not seek opinions, but seek rather insights and facts. Players indeed have opinions or my question would not exist, but I do not ask what those opinions are. Rather, I ask the fact-based question of which rules have found (or can find) themselves to be objects of opposite interpretation.

I do not ask which interpretation is right.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Good question!

As of Jan 2018, the FIDE rules are a lot clearer than they used to be. However there are some minor issues.

(1) The wording is arguably unclear that passing is illegal!

Firstly, it's not stated that "making a move" means "moving one piece". This should be specified (and not in Article 4, which should really be a Competition Rule). Castling is properly defined as a king move, no issue there.

Secondly, it's not clear that the riders (queen, rook, bishop) can't move by staying on their current squares. E.g. 3.2 "The bishop may move to any square along a diagonal on which it stands." is missing the word "other". And I'm not sure that 3.1 "It is not permitted to move a piece to a square occupied by a piece of the same colour." is strong enough.

(2) I am generally happy with 3.10 (which arrived in 2014 I think), which defines legal moves, illegal moves and illegal positions.

Curiously, *legal* *positions* are not defined, but I can we can safely induce what they must be from the other three definitions. But in any case, illegality of position is only used in one obscurely narrow context:

> Rapid Play A.4.4 If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting position, he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if an illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn.

Maybe "illegal position" is defined just to allow it into the arbiters' vocabulary. The arbiters are given wide discretion under FIDE Laws.

However the Laws allow play in illegal positions. It's only a requirement for checkmate, for example, that the last *move* be legal. This is correct because it may be very hard to determine whether a position is legal. Also, there is a lot of interesting chess in illegal positions (e.g. wPb2, wBa1) so there's no reason to exclude them.

(3) I would like a term for what a legal move becomes when it is unplayable because the game has been terminated (through dead position, repetition, whatever... basically any cause of termination apart from mate & stalemate, when by definition no legal moves remain). But that's not really an ambiguity, just a lack of standard terminology.

(4) One area of historical ambiguity has been largely cleared up: and that's the impact of castling and en passant rights on draw by repetition. Residual confusion is perhaps because the basis is different between castling and en passant. Castling rights depend purely on whether a king or rook has been moved or captured. There is no investigation of the possibility of actually castling. On the other hand, en passant status depends on whether the capture can actually be executed, or whether it is prevented by some direct or indirect pin or check. This distinction (which biologists might term "genotypic" versus "phenotypic") is completely rational, but I think that some people expect castling and en passant to be handled in the same way.

A final corner-case cobweb in this area remains: suppose king and rook have not moved, and then the rook is captured. Does the relevant castling right remain? 9.2.2.2 says "The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved." This could actually have an impact.

There is the famous issue of checkmate on the 50.0th non-capturing, non-pawn move. To me it is clear that the player has the choice over the board to draw if they want to, just as a player is allowed to resign in a position which is clearly not lost, or offer a draw in a clearly won position. I don't see why an arbiter should feel the need to interfere in the first case, but not in the other two.

Two other lacunae, other posters have competently detailed, but I will list for completeness:

(5) Both players resign (race condition).

(6) No-one has the move at game start.

In summary, as a problemist, the main change I would still like to see in the FIDE Laws is the completion of the partition into (1) rules of play, which are defined mathematically, requiring no arbiter (2) over the board conduct, about embedding the mathematical object that is a game of chess into the real world, and where the arbiter's judgment rightly holds sway.

# Answer
> 9 votes
This is purely academical, but there is an ambiguity whether the position after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 Ng8 is the same as the position at the beginning of the game.

Indeed, article 9.2.2 of the laws of chess states that:

> Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.

Indeed, the second and third requirements are met. The problem is with the first one. After 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 Ng8 there is no doubt that white "has the move" since her opponent's move has just been made, and law 1.3 defines "having the move" as:

> A player is said to ‘have the move’ when his opponent’s move has been ‘made’.

But who "has the move" in the starting position ? If we follow textually the rules of chess and the definition above, noone "has the move" in the starting position, since noone's opponent's move has been made.

Law 1.2 just says:

> The player with the light-coloured pieces (White) makes the first move

This confirms that the possibilities after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 Ng8 are exactly the same as in the starting position, but doesn't define "having the move" in the starting position. So, can we say that the two positions are identical in respect to article 9.2.2 ?

Well, that's where the ambiguity lies.

Obviously, this problem can only be relevant if someone claims for a threefold repetition when reaching a position 'identical' to the starting position. Which shouldn't happen too often. And such a claim might be denied anyway for lack of affrontment. So I suppose this should not prevent us to play chess with a free mind.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I'm using the rules of january 2018.

There are many ambiguities left, and recently more have been introduced mostly by calling some things an "illegal move" that weren't considered illegal moves before, like using two hands to castle, seemingly without really considering all the implications of that.

It is in general legal to reply to an opponent's move before the opponent has pressed the clock, that's always been fine and allowed by the rules (mostly because of increments, it's important that the opponent still presses the clock, and then you press it).

So say player A castles using two hands, player B touches a piece to move it but then remembers what A does is wrong and he lets go of the piece. Then player A presses the clock.

Rule 4.1 says that you can't use two hands:

```
4.1 Each move must be played with one hand only.

```

Rule 4.8 says you can only complain about that right then, not later when you've started to move:

```
4.8 A player forfeits his right to claim against his opponent’s violation
of Articles 4.1 – 4.7 once the player touches a piece with the intention
of moving or capturing it.

```

Now the new 7.5.4 says that once the move is completed (clock pressed) then it counts as an illegal move and will be penalised as such:

```
7.5.4 If a player uses two hands to make a single move (for example in
case of castling, capturing or promotion) and pressed the clock, it shall
be considered and penalized as if an illegal move.

```

That penalty can be severe, like a game loss in case of a second illegal move.

So which is it, is it irrelevant that the castling happened with two hands because a piece was touched and the game has moved on, or is it really bad and potentially a game loss?

In that moment when B has touched his piece but A hasn't pressed his clock yet, nothing can be fixed (because it's B's move, and how do you fix moving with two hands anyway), nothing can be claimed (because of 4.8). But A's clock is running and once he presses it he's completed an illegal move.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Both opponents have resigned in OTB game.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Another guy mentioned "Both opponents have resigned in OTB game." as an answer.

I want to comment on that but I don't have enough points.

I want to say that this is not a matter of law, but a matter of fact.

2 opponents can not resign at the same time. In fact, 1 of them will have resigned first, and that first resignation will mean that the other player is the winner.

However, I can see how it could become a question of ambiguous fact. One possibility is that the black player may mark his scoresheet as 1-0 (therefore resigning in law), while the white player also marks on his scoresheet 0-1 (also resigning). The two players themselves may not even be aware of who resigned first, but there will be in fact a first resigner.

Since the only question here is the facts, this can not be "an ambiguity in the laws of chess". The laws are clear, but when the facts are unclear, it can be difficult to apply the laws for sure.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The longer you study the rules about game endings, the more ambiguities you find. As other answers have pointed out, three of the huge ones are:

1. The effect of writing down a checkmating move to claim a 50 move draw (Art. 9.2.1.1)
2. Whether the starting position counts for repetition draws (Art. 9.2.2)
3. What exactly "a pawn could have been captured en passant" means in the repetition draw rule (Art. 9.2.2.1)

Another question is whether resignation is legal in a situation where you cannot be checkmated by any series of legal moves. The glossary at the end of the FIDE Laws, which is considered an integral part of the Laws, defines "resigns" as follows:

"Where a player gives up, rather than play on until mated."

On its face, this definition seems to imply that you can only resign if you can legally be checkmated. (Interestingly, the USCF rules also define resignation in a way that implies at least the possibility of checkmate). Now, maybe we shouldn't read any significance into this definition. Maybe it's just sloppiness and carelessness on the part of whoever wrote the glossary.

Or maybe not. In several other places, the FIDE Laws noticeably go out of their way to make sure that someone won't lose without a theoretical checkmate. Art. 6.9 states that you cannot lose on time if your opponent cannot legally checkmate you. Art. 7.5.5 protects you from losing when checkmate is impossible even if you make two illegal moves yourself. And the Quickplay Finish Guidelines go so far as to shield you from losing in situations where checkmate is merely *unlikely!*

So, I would say there's certainly a reasonable case for taking the glossary definition of "resigns" at face value.

Next, there are many issues with the draws in Art. 9.6.1 for fivefold repetition, and Art. 9.6.2 for 75 moves. First, if it turns out that checkmate cannot legally occur for either side prior to hitting the 5th repetition, or the 75th move, does that mean it would be an immediate 'dead position' draw under Art. 5.2.2, on the grounds that checkmate is impossible by any series of legal moves? And by the same principle, if a player who could not legally be checkmated prior to a 5th repetition or a 75th move runs out of time, are they awarded the draw under Art. 6.9?

Which leads right into the next question: if the arbiter doesn't notice the draw condition right away, are any moves made on the board after the 5th repetition or the 75th move considered 'valid' and real? Or would the draw be considered retroactive to the moment the 5th repetition or 75th move was hit, potentially nullifying a subsequent checkmate? On the one hand, 9.6.1 says "*at least* five times" and 9.6.2 says "*at least* 75 moves" - which seems to quietly suggest that any subsequent moves are indeed real and valid.

On the other hand, the 75 move rule says "if the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence" while the fivefold repetition rule conspicuously omits any mention of checkmate. Why would there be such an obvious discrepancy if subsequent moves are real and valid? The discrepancy points toward checkmate only counting on the exact 75th move, with any subsequent checkmate being ignored.

The 9.6.1 and 9.6.2 draws are a complete mess. They somehow get more confusing the more you try to understand them.

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


# Question
Title: meaning of fractional depth in chessbase?
when I load fritz 17 in chessbase, it often shows depth as for e.g. 18/25. what does this mean?

# Answer
This means, that your searching UCI engine has currently reached the nominal depth of 18 plies but reached somewhere a maximum depth of 25 plies. Compared to the overall search depth the maximum depth should be of relative little importance, since it talks about a singular event among billions of nodes. Another problem is, that the UCI protocol (http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/UCIProtocol.html) is deliberately extremly weak regarding the meaning of engine output. That makes sense, since search engine development still makes progress at a fast pace. If you want to know exactly what maximum it counts, you have to dig it up in the respective engine source code.

Hence if you want to report engine results, you can ignore the maximum depth reached, but should never ever miss to tell the nominal search depth.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: engines, software
---


# Question
Title: Opening as a Beginner: Mainlines or Offbeaten path?
I am approximately 1500 OTB (Lichess Classical 1750, chess.com 1540, internal rating in my club ~1500), and of course I would like to improve. Work and family are demanding, so naturally I would like to make the most of my limited study time.

I do not think that I gain a lot by spending time on studying openings. On the other hand, I want to and like to play tactical lines in order to improve my tactical vision.

Currently I play 1.e4 as white (Evans Gambit, Fried Liver, Open Sicilian, Korchnoi Gambit, improvise on everything else), and as black I play the Qd8 Scandinavian against 1e4 and QGA against 1d4.

I wonder whether I should switch to more tactical lines as black, for example the Portugese Gambit against 1e4 as presented by Smerdon ("Smerdon's Scandinavian) or recently Vincent Moret in "My first chess opening repertoire for black". Moret also suggests the Albin Countergambit against 1d4.

I do feel however, that these openings are far from trivial. For example in the Evans Gambit, a lot of good moves come quite naturally, whereas in the Portugese Gambit there are a lot of nuances and move orders to remember (should I put the queen on f5 or on h5?) etc., and if you make one bad move you are very quickly on the losing side. And there are lots of chances to make bad moves.

So in summary: To improve my tactical vision and my game in general, should an amateur like myself invest time in studying these sharp and aggressive *offbeat* opening lines, or rather play more *solid lines* and spend the time on studying the endgame and middlegame?

I'd be especially interested in stronger players experience, i.e. how they improved.

# Answer
In general, independently of playstyle, I'd advise every beginner who seriously wants to improve in the long run to favor "popular" openings over "offbeat" ones.

**Offbeat openings** are (usually) considered offbeat for a reason. That is, usually there is some way for the opponent to "defuse" them. Of course, that doesn't mean they are unplayable, and at a ~1500 level, most opponents won't know about that way anyways. They will at most have learned some variations of the main openings and have no real clue about playing against the Evans, Albin, etc. gambits. If you are properly prepared, you can exploit that, and these offbeat openings will often net you more wins compared to the popular ones in the beginning. However, in the long run, you will run into more and more opponents who DO know them, and some years down the line you may face the dilemma that these openings slow down your progress.

**Popular openings** on the other hand will usually be less impressive in the beginning, point wise. However, if you find one that you like, you will essentially have found a buddy for the rest of your life. Similar to the offbeat openings, they are (usually) popular for good reason. Having already lived under the microscope of thousands of master for decades, it's unlikely that they will suddenly be "refuted" (that risk is much higher in offbeat openings). Yes, the amount of theory may be frighteningly big, but so is the potential reward. After all, while many different lines mean that you have to have much more to learn, they also mean that you have much more to learn: You get a much broader scope of middle game positions you can potentially reach, and learning how to handle them is very beneficial for your overall chess skill. You don't have to know all little lines from the beginning (your opponents won't either), just start small and build up the tree move by move over time. Honed over the years, a popular opening is guaranteed to at some point surpass the results of offbeat openings.

My personal approach is to play **popular openings, but slightly offbeat lines** within these openings. That way, I still retain some surprise factor (and decrease the risk that an opponent "out-prepares" me), while still having the safety to play a very sound opening that I can fall back on. It's much easier to just switch to a different line at move 5 (that most likely uses at least some of the motives that I already know from my previous choice of line - not to mention that all side lines before move 5 stay the same) than to switch my entire opening at move 1 (that I will for the most part be completely unfamiliar with).

In your case, I agree with the other answers. Sicilian (Najdorf/Sveshnikov), Slav and Caro-Kann are all fine choices. I mean, you can play stuff like the Portuguese gambit every now and then to have a little fun, that certainly doesn't hurt ... but I wouldn't devote a lot of time into it.
> 11 votes

# Answer
Here's my answer as an FM:

Scandinavian with Qd8 is a great choice if you want to avoid trappy theory while achieving **normal** positions.

Negative to Qd8 Scandinavian is that white gets a very free game i.e. you are going to be defending as black for a while. When you have time to study consider adding mainline Qa5. *Disclaimer: I do not play Scandinavian as black but know IMs who do.*

Avoid Portuguese Gambit unless you have the time to learn the lines. It leads to nonstandard positions which will not help you otherwise.

Keep Evans Gambit but for the times when you want quieter game play the Italian Opening. If you have an inclination for endgames consider Ruy Lopez Exchange variation.

Consider Kings Indian Attack versus French and Sicilian. You can also play it against g6/b6/d6. Again this is **practical advice** for someone **pressed for time**.

That leaves a problem on what to do as black vs Nf3/c4/d4 .

Personally, I am partial to Benoni-type of structures but they can be limiting.

Consider playing regular Kings Indian Defense! Sure there is a TON of theory but study only the ideas and structures(ie f5 break, defense of d6, Rook lift, how to attack on kingside) not the long lines. It will complement KIA as white as there are many ideas that transfer over.

If KID does not suit you, consider playing e6/d5/c6 type of structures.

So learn **ideas/structures first** over concrete move orders

Ideally, you want to have both sharp and quiet openings in your toolkit but that can take time to build which you do not have.

My assumption from your question is that you are an adult who has little time but wants to improve.
> 4 votes

# Answer
To improve your tactics it's important to do tactical puzzles consistently, openings have little to do with tactical ability. If you want positional experience in open, closed, or semi-closed positions then switching openings might make some sense. Just be aware whatever you switch to, you will not know it as well so you will have worse results for awhile.

Looking at your openings, they are completely fine although they can lead to somewhat dry positions. If I had to suggest changing your play to get more exciting positions, I'd recommend something like the Slav defense, or the triangle system against d4, and the Caro-Kann against e4. This way you'll have somewhat more combative openings with better chances to create dynamic play, but you will still have positions similar to what you usually play.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Definitely go with the sharp lines! If you forget what to do or can't figure it out over-the-board then that is a learning opportunity -- you can go see what you missed after the game. Tactical vision and calculating ability is what sets players apart.
I got to 2300+ mostly on tactics with a strong endgame. The game should be learned backwards (ending first, opening last)!
> 2 votes

# Answer
At that rating level, you’re better served by playing simple openings and concentrating on getting better at chess in general, so any opening, offbeat or mainline, that requires weeks or months of study is sub-optimal.

Spend your chess study time learning chess tactics and endgames, spend enough time on the opening to understand what you should have played last game instead of preparing for a line that may never end up on your board.
> 1 votes

# Answer
An opening repertoire for someone who has no time to study should not aim at getting an advantage, but aim instead to create situations in which you feel at home and in which your opponent will have difficulty taking you out of that "comfort zone" As White the combination of d4 and Bf4 has been called the businessman's opening for just that reason. As Black the Center Counter is a reasonable choice against 1.e4 Although White can often get an advantage by precise play, your present opponents are unlikely to be able to do that. But do avoid being purely passive. Against 1.d4, there is a lot to be said for the Dutch. You will almost certainly get the structure that you like (Stonewall or Leningrad).

Do not worry that this repertoire is unlikely to take you to the highest levels. You are not going there anyway unless your life takes a turn giving you more time to study, so worry about it then.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Ah. THAT QUESTION!! Lol! Asked by many players!! I think there are lines for ones rating. So unless you have the time and want to devote time then sveshnikov, Botvinick semi slav maybe not best allocation but that’s not what you are asking. You have a family and a life, be thankful you have time for chess. The QGA can be “boring” when you play early c5 as dxc5 and a queen trade steer the game faster to a maneuvering game. So semko Semkov wrote a book with Delchev bypassing this line you play d4 d5 c4 dxc4 nf3 nf6 e3 Bg4! No exchange of queens early. Can you use it at 2800 nah you may have to play Nimzo Indian the tartakower QGd or the Grunfeld. I have been assured theBenko is best sub 2000 by many strong players. Above that play KID. So Keep the Qga if you like open or semi open positions. If not maybe try KID or Nimzo/ Vienna. Now vs 1.e4 try 1…e5!! It’s open like QGA and will teach you chess. Try open Spanish John Watson in his book on 1.e4 in his epic 4 books on the openings says it’s great for tacticians and ameteurs. Has a great mix of teaching and workload balance. Something like that. Or gamble and play Najdorf or sveshnikov or dragon. 3 sharpest lines and best in Sicilian! I like the QGA and open!! Now white. If you are liking the evans and doing well great if not drop it and get Neil McDonalds book play 1. E4 or win 1.e4. I know it’s by Neil McDonald he recommends scotch, pano vs caro, your korchnoi gambit and open Sicilians! Vs dragon I would play 90-0-0 not Bc4 vs Najdorf either Be3 or h3. Schevenigen is fine with Be3 but g4 is best! Now with classical play f3 and Be3. Vs acclerated dragon play nc3 best with repertoire you have though maybe c4 is best and play everything else Neil recommends. I think main lines vs modern and pirc ie Be3. Scandi I think just follow what he recommends. Smerdons book. At 1500 I would learn a more stable line you can still use at 2000 plus ie the open. Oh vs 1.e4 e5 f4 play d5 and go into modern kings gambit. Vs guicco bite the bullet and play the 2 knights. It’s sharper then Bc5. Note many strong players say tactics and sharp play is best so keep doing those tactics and good luck!!
> 0 votes

# Answer
At 1500 openings are not your problem. Trying to play tactical slash and burn is a problem and a poor strategy for improving. You may like them but they are not the best approach. And when you play someone better they will skin your cat quickly.

Go for solid openings off the main lines that everybody plays. Use principles to guide your moves not trying for gambits and tactics.

If all you want to do is stay at 1500 and have fun without improving then ignore this advice and keep playing like you do.
> -2 votes

# Answer
Take the Fischer games collection and play twice through it. Then try to remember what openings he has played and reproduce them on the board. There is no better openings guide than Fischer games.
> -4 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, tactics, beginner
---


# Question
Title: What openings are recommendable for beginners to study?
I am a beginner. With reference to opening theory, which opening should I start learning? My friends are suggesting the Ruy Lopez.

# Answer
To answer your question directly, your friends aren't wrong, and it's not a bad idea at all for you to play the Ruy Lopez, from both the white side and the black side. In fact, knowing nothing much about you or your exact level of play, it's still a safe suggestion that opening with either `1. e4` or `1. d4` with white, and responding with `1. e4 e5` or `1. d4 d5` with black is a solid way to begin to get your footing in the opening phase of the game. Of course, that's just move one (and only the two most popular options for that), and there are plenty of forks in the road beyond that point. Nevertheless, while my advice to you is that *playing* the Ruy Lopez is a great idea, *studying it (or any other opening) in any great depth is not*, at least not right now.

Instead, you should focus on a few principles, like aiming to get your king safely castled in a timely manner, trying to control the center of the board with your pawns (our first moves above are a good start), and developing your pieces with the idea of using them to further control the center of the board. All of these ideas are visible in the Ruy Lopez, and that's one reason it is a good suggestion. After `1. e4 e5`, we see that `2. Nf3` develops a kingside piece and helps control the central squares d4 and e5, `2. ... Nc6` fights for control of those same squares (and defends the e5 pawn), and `3. Bb5` indirectly fights for those same squares by threatening the c6 knight, while also clearing the path for the white king to castle. Part of my point is that all of these moves make a great deal of sense, just for the principled reasons given here, and can be recognized as such and played confidently without needing to get your hands dirty with a lot of opening theory.

To learn more about important opening principles, and what you should be thinking about in the opening phase of the game, you might consider checking out John Emms' book *Discovering Chess Principles: Building Opening Skills from Basic Principles*, which is aimed squarely at developing in beginners a good sense of how to make good moves in the opening. (You'll find good reader reviews at that link; for good measure, here's a review from Chessville as well.) In addition to that, I'd say what's most important is just to play a lot and have fun, keeping guiding principles in mind while you do, and *when things do go wrong, make a point of determining why*. Try to figure it out yourself, and any time you can't, seek out an explanation from someone else. (Maybe come back here and ask!)
> 14 votes

# Answer
I would recommend to start with the Accelerated Dragon for black (`1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6`). It gives you a solid position and also has few nice traps at the beginning which work quite well for beginners. Then you could play the same moves with white and you will get a decent position (This could be called English opening or Reversed Sicilian). The important thing is that when you play it with white you play almost the same moves and 90 per cent of the time your pieces will be on the same position (e.g. pawns - c4, d3, g3; bishop - g2, knights - c3, f3; and so on ..) no matter what the black plays.

Against `1.d4` I would recommend Slav, Semi-Slav or the Classical Queen's Gambit (`1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7`). They are usually simple (compared to the things that could arise from `1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6`) and solid defences.

If you face some weird starting move from white, then stick with the Dragon because, as I implied, it has very versatile possibilities.
> 8 votes

# Answer
For beginners I recommend one white opening and two black ones. The point here is that you'll memorize and learn enough to be effective without getting buried in a lot of pointless memorization. Learn a few openings, get to playing, then learn more, play more, etc.

About the openings, your choice depends upon what you're looking for in a game.

If you want games that tend to be open and attacking, as white `1. e4` is a great choice. The Ruy Lopez is the greatest of the e4 moves, and has about a million variations. For this reason you'll be unable to remember them all, and even if you did you wouldn't know what to do if your opponent made an 'out of book' move. For this reason, learn the *purpose* and *philosophy* of the openings. Then you can make intelligent, guided moves when you're 'out of your book.'

For black, learn 2 openings so you can respond to `1. d4` or `1. e4`.

For the former, likely suspects for black include the Grunfeld or King's Indian (`1. d4 Nf6`) or the Queen's Gambit.

For the latter, the French and Ruy are both passable.

If you like nothing more than a quick brutal game, learn the Sicilian `1. e4 c5`. Be advised, you'll lose frequently until you get it down. If you're booked up and you *understand the opening* (can't stress that enough) you'll chop some heads.

All these openings are described in great depth in Wikipedia.
> 5 votes

# Answer
There's a good reason that beginners are coached to learn the Open Games (1.e4 e5) as both Black and White. These games are heavily populated with tactics that teach:

* How to make and recognize threats
* How to calculate
* How to defend

Because the central pawns are often exchanged or captured, or become reduced to a fixed ram pair, these games involve a lot of open lines, giving beginners a chance to learn to visualize long-range threats, and to combine line pieces to attack focal squares, such as by constructing batteries.

The density of threats and heavy bias towards tactics and away from strategy makes these types of games easier to understand for a beginner. Topics such as provoking and defending weaknesses (e.g. Isolated Queen's Pawns and doubled pawns), exploiting outposts, and endgame theory often involve too much complexity for beginners to be successful and enjoy the game.

Most beginners will remain more engaged and enjoy the game more if there is frequent capturing, it is easy to find active moves, and they can visualize what's going on easily. This is the same reason TD's are very lenient towards beginners; they want to avoid frustrating experiences that discourage play.

So, the traditional (and still useful) first openings include the:

1. Italian Game (Giuoco Piano) and Evans Gambit
2. Scotch Game and Gambit
3. Ruy Lopez (especially Exchange Variation)
4. King's Gambit

and so on.

After some experience with these, beginners will be able to assimilate the new concepts required in the Semi-Open Games. The Sicilian Defense is a good candidate, for similar reasons, although it introduces the ideas of weaknesses, imbalances, stock sacrifices, queenside vs kingside play, and so on. Teachers advocate learning either the Caro-Kann or the French, after some experience with the Sicilian, to introduce more elements of closed positions and maneuvering.

Next, the Closed Games can be introduced, with their ideas of preparation of pawn breaks, center vs wing attacks, emphasis on weak pawns and outposts, and so on.

That's a rough outline of a fairly universally-applied sequence, with an explanation I've heard from several coaches.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I agree. Open games and thus open positions. Study gambits first. Then say more stable stuff 4 knights and scotch then guicco Piano and finally ruy Lopez. So as black vs d4 play d5 and play chess then learn tarrasch then qga and qgd. Finally Indians and Slavs. And what to play vs English and Nf3 play d5 vs Nf3 and e5 vs English and play chess. At 1400 play qga, open Spanish and 1.e4. At 2000 re-evaluate your openings maybe add Sicilian or French. And Indian openings. Good luck
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, recommendations
---


# Question
Title: Trouble with Opening ideas for 3. g3 in the Vienna game, Falkbeer Variation
I have been trying to practice my ability to strategize in positions and form long-term ideas, and this position has stumped me for a little bit.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3

```

Initially, I thought that it may facilitate a queenside attack, so that you may develop your other pieces on the queenside, and look for a pawn break to activate your bishop, but when looking through games in the database, I see nothing like that. What would be your main ideas in this position, and what would you play for?

# Answer
> 5 votes
> What would be your main ideas in this position, and what would you play for?

With the pawn on g3 I'd be looking to fianchetto the light squared bishop, develop the g1 knight to e2 (now it doesn't interfere with the bishop) where it supports both the d4 and f4 pawn breaks, leaving the f pawn free to advance to f3 or f4 as required. If the c1 bishop is going to come to e3 then I'd like the f pawn on f3 to stop the black knight coming to g4 to bother the bishop.

If black castles kingside I'd be very happy as I now have a natural kingside attack based on the f4 advance. If black castles queenside then I'm going to be looking more towards d4 to break open the center and unleash my g2 bishop against black's queenside.

---
Tags: opening, strategy
---


# Question
Title: How to avoid the same opening move in an engine built using Python chess
I created a chess engine using the Python chess library. It has an evaluation function (piece values, piece square values, and capture values) and minimax. Alpha-beta pruning is also implemented. At depth three, it always starts with a knight for both White and Black. Sometimes it only plays with a knight for at least 10 moves. How do I avoid this? Is there a way to add some opening knowledge to the engine?

# Answer
This lack of opening diversity problem affects even the strongest engines, so don't worry about it. Still, there are things you can do:

* Add some small random factor to your eval, such that most positions do not return exactly the same number. Many of the strongest engines already do this, not because they want to play different openings, but because it encourages the engine to search certain branches more.
* Use an opening book.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, computer-chess, mathematics, python, minimax
---


# Question
Title: The best reply to 4. Nxe4 in the C46 Four Knights, Italian Variation
I am a low rated player and I would like to understand why 5. Nxe4 is considered to be the best move by White in the C46 Four Knights, Italian Variation Opening against 4. Nxe4 by Black instead of 5. Bxf7+.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bc4 Nxe4 5. Nxe4 (5. Bxf7+)

```

# Answer
> 15 votes
5.Bxf7+ has a reasonable idea behind it, in that it exposes Black's king and jettisons White's bishop before Black can use the fork trick on it that would follow with 5.Nxe4 d5. However, it has some concrete problems:

* After 5...Kxf7 6.Nxe4, Black plays 6...d5 and forms a massive center.
* Black's king turns out to not be vulnerable on f7. It will quickly retreat to g8 where it is relatively safe.
* White's knights are going to get kicked around a lot with loss of tempo. If he plays 7.Neg5+ Kg8, both ...h6 and ...e4 will attack knights that don't have very good places to flee to.

In contrast, after 5.Nxe4 d5, Black regains his sacrificed piece, but has to break up his pawn center in the process. After 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Bxe4, White no longer has his opening advantage but the position is relatively equal.

The lesson from all of this is that 4.Bc4 is not a very good move. The standard alternatives are 4.Bb5 (Spanish Four Knights), 4.d4 (Scotch Four Knights), and 4.g3 (Glek Four Knights), which all keep White's opening advantage.

P.S. I should point out that there is a third alternative for White's fifth move, 5.0-0, gambiting a pawn for a lead in development. This is likely actually better than either 5.Bxf7+ or 5.Nxe4, but if you want to play a gambit like that then there are much better ones to play than the Italian Four Knights.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I would agree that the first scenario presented is the better move for two reasons:

1. It allows White to maintain control of its side of the center. In the second scenario, White is giving Black a foothold in this valuable space (e4).
2. In the second scenario, White forces Black's king to move, and thereby prevents it from castling. While that is an advantage for White, has to sacrifice a bishop (early) to get it.

It comes down to risk vs. reward. White's reward of maintaining control of the center (the better of the two rewards, IMO) can be achieved with less risk (first scenario), than preventing Black from castling can be.

# Answer
> 2 votes
`4. Bc4` is a mistake because it leads to a fork trick for Black:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bc4 Nxe4 5. Nxe4 d5

```

Given this fork trick, the best square for the light-squared bishop is `b5`, so I would altogether avoid playing `4. Bc4`.

After `5. Bxf7+`, I still do not think white has the advantage, for example, after:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bc4 Nxe4 5. Bxf7+ Kxf7 6. Nxe4 d5

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
I disagree with commentators on 4.Bc4. There is a article on 4.Bc4 Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Bxe4 Bd6 8.Bxc6+ etc. by Yury V. Bukayev here. White gets the advantage after 7...Bd6 8.Bxc6+, and 7...Ne7 8.c3, and 7...Nb4 8.a3, and after other responses (this article considers them too).

So 5.Nxe4 isn't only the good way, it's also the way to White's advantage. The move 5.Bxf7+ isn't good, it transforms the White's nice position into a bad one.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, four-knights
---


# Question
Title: How difficult is it to win a winning endgame against an engine?
Consider an endgame like the one shown below (white to move):

```
[fen "5k2/5p2/r7/8/6R1/4b1PP/8/5R1K w - - 0 50"]

```

Stockfish gives white a solid +3 advantage here and that seems appropriate given that white is up the exchange with an extra pawn. I don't have strong endgame technique though, so when I try to play this position against the engine, I can't seem to win. I keep running into various tactics including forced draws, pins, forks, etc, or at least can't figure out how to make progress. If I kept playing against the engine in this position and also used the engine for help when getting stuck, I imagine I'd eventually be able to drive the victory home unassisted by recognizing the various defenses black can employ as well as the resources white has for making progress.

What's unclear to me about this and other endgame positions is the extent to which the difficulty of playing against the engine is due to (1) a lack of endgame technique vs (2) the engine's calculation advantage. In other words, **would having solid endgame technique allow you to reliably win endgames such as the one above, or would it often be the case that the engine is able to find refutations to seemingly good moves on the basis of its ability to just churn through possible positions?** A human player might avoid certain moves because the resulting positions *look* like they trap a piece or invite a tactic or allow a forced draw, but an engine of course knows definitively what the possibilities resulting from each move will be (up to some depth).

The possibility that some winning endgames are either difficult or impossible to win against an engine even with well-grounded play seems especially likely (at least from my perspective) for positions involving knights and bishops. At least with rook and pawn endgames, it's easier to calculate given their ability to cut off files and ranks and stick behind pawns. With knights and bishops, however, it seems to require much more accurate play to avoid running into strong coordination sequences from the engine.

One notable example of an endgame containing an outcome-changing move that seems near impossible for a human to find comes from a game between Carlsen and Caruana

```
[fen "5k2/8/5pK1/5PbP/2Bn4/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[StartPly "139"]

1... Bh4 2. Bd5 Ne2 3. Bf3 Ng1!!

```

Black can surprisingly win with 68...Bh4 69. Bd5 Ne2 70. Bf3 Ng1!!, though the sequence seems out of the reach of a human player. Looking at this position on Lichess it seems move isn't even found with the cloud analysis used which is stated to be Stockfish 13+ at depth 72. What I'm curious about is how often and in what conditions this is possible - that a position with a seemingly straightforward outcome (according to GMs) has moves that only an engine could realistically find that lead to a separate outcome.

# Answer
An interesting question! I set up the position, gave myself 10 minutes of time and tried playing against the most difficult engine on lichess. I failed to win even though I used one takeback as well. My playing strength is about 2200-2300, I'm a national master. I checked with the engine how I could've won and it wasn't that complicated. Although I didn't win the engine from that position, I still don't think it's too difficult.

I think the positions you gave are examples of endgames where engines are significantly more resilient defenders than human players. Being a pawn and an exchange up is quite a big advantage, so the margin for error isn't that small, there are still several paths to a win. That's why it's very much possible to beat the engine. In the Carlsen-Caruana game the path to the win is much narrower.

It's hard if not impossible to classify in simple terms which endgames have the property that engine plays them significantly better than humans. Chess is too complicated for such classifications. It can happen with many different material distributions. Some common characteristics are that the margin for error is small, the position requires a lot of calculation, there's not much strategy left, and the endgame doesn't occur too frequently (so that humans haven't studied it). For example no one studies how to win positions with an exchange and a pawn up. I guess there are two reasons for that: those are rare situations and too diverse. There's not really any engdame theory in positions that are really concrete, i.e. no generalizable plans and every variation requires different approach. Humans usually prefer positions with more strategy in them. Computers are good in endgames that are calculation heavy, require being tactically aware and enable tenacious defences.

Endgame knowledge is of course sometimes useful. In your example position, it could be useful to know when R+pawn versus rook is winning, when R + g- and h-pawns vs R is winning, in which situations R vs B is winning and is it possible to sometimes defend R+h-pawn vs B? Having that kind of endgame knowledge let's you liquidate to simpler endgames in favorable situations. But engines rarely give you those chances.
> 27 votes

# Answer
Note that I answered quite a few CSE endgame questions about how to bring a large advantage home safe. This position is different, though, as Black can offer much resistance. For once, I am not so sure if I could win this convincingly (in the other cases I would have agreed to blitz for the leading side - I have trust in my endgame technique). Here it is not so easy to split the win into smaller goals. I would try to push the pawns to g5/h6, double rooks to enter the 8th and then win with h7-h8Q. (Black should not move his f-pawn, as the king gets the wrath of two rooks, and a rook exchange should make the position hopeless.)

But to answer your question concretely, my problems in this position have nothing to do whatsoever with computer "trickery", but rather with the lack of a plan that convinces me. Likewise, I think a weaker player will have more problems to find the correct plan than the computer torpedoing the plan with tactics, and this is generic - wacko moves like Ng1 above should rather be the exception.

tl;dr: My opinion - tactics rarely are the decisive element in bringing home an endgame, and elusive tactics almost never.
> 10 votes

# Answer
> What's unclear to me about this and other endgame positions is the extent to which the difficulty of playing against the engine is due to (1) a lack of endgame technique vs (2) the engine's calculation advantage.

I suspect there would not be much difference in your performance against a GM. The reason being that the GM has far greater endgame knowledge than you rather than the GM having engine-like calculating ability.

Do you know when a K+P vs K endgame is winning? Can you tell at a glance? This is something that players well below master level should be able to do. Can you mate with K+N+B vs K? At one level it is a bit of a party trick. That said a few years ago an 1800 player in our club delivered mate with 30 seconds on the clock in an important 3+2 blitz game.

An important part of evaluating an endgame position is knowing how to win that endgame. It makes no difference if you are playing an engine or a GM, the result is the same.

If you are material up in the middlegame and you are calculating exchanges to reach an endgame still material up then you have wasted your time if you can't correctly evaluate that endgame. It is all too easy to deliberately play your way to an endgame which your opponent can draw without too much effort despite being material down.

Endgame knowledge is key.

> would having solid endgame technique allow you to reliably win endgames such as the one above?

Yes. I would expect to beat an engine in that position and my FIDE rating is in the low 1700's. The plan is straightforward and there is little black can do to stop it.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The answer depends not only on your own playing strength and endgame experience/skill, but also the type of "winning" endgame. There are endgames that are numerically overwhelming according to the computer that would be very difficult for a human to win. Here is one such example.

```
[FEN "1n1k4/6Q1/5KP1/8/7b/1r6/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

This a "forced mate", but requires 549 precise moves, i.e. a mistake would result in a draw. Most of it would be utterly impossible for any human to understand strategically.

However, there also exist endgames with a small (yet ultimately decisive) advantage that a human might find trivial to play correctly. Stockfish evaluates the below position to be +0.3, which is about the same advantage as White gets at the beginning, yet it is fairly straightforward for an experienced player to win against any strength of opposition.

```
[FEN "5bk1/3p2p1/8/3p4/5p2/3KpP2/P1N3PP/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. a4 Bc5 2. a5 Kf7 3. a6 Ke7 4. Na3 Kd8 5. Nb5 Kc8 6. g3 g5 7. gxf4 gxf4 8. h4 Kb8 9. h5 Bf8 10. Nc3 Bh6 11. Nxd5 Ka7 12. Ne7 Kxa6 13. Nf5 Bg5 14. h6 Bf6 15. h7 Kb5 16. Nd6+ Kc6 17. Nf7 Kd5 18. h8=Q Bxh8 19. Nxh8 Ke6 20. Ng6 Kf5 21. Nh4+ Ke5 22. Ng2 d6 23. Ne1 Kd5 24. Nc2 e2 25. Kxe2 Kc4 26. Ne1 Kd5 27. Nd3 Ke6 28. Nxf4+ Kf5 29. Nd3 Ke6 30. Ke3 Kd5 31. f4 Kc6 32. Ke4 Kb7 33. Kd5 Kc7 34. Ke6 Kd8 35. Kxd6 Ke8 36. Ke6 Kf8 37. f5 Kg7 38. f6+ Kg6 39. Ne5+ Kg5 40. f7 Kf4 41. f8=Q+ Ke3 42. Qf3+ Kd4 43. Qd3+ Kc5 44. Qc4+ Kb6 45. Nd7+ Kb7 46. Kd6 Ka7 47. Qb5 Ka8 48. Qb8#

```
> 5 votes

# Answer
I'm not quite sure what is exactly the point of the question, but anyway. First, as it is correctly pointed out in the other answer, top players as GMs (and engine too) are extremely resourceful in defending bad endgames. We don't see it too often in their games because they don't play too much against amateurs, but it's very difficult to win a winning endgame against such a player. Moreover, in the endgames people usually don't have much time left, which makes it even trickier.

Second, there is a concept of "technical" positions - which anyone can win against an arbitrary strong player. As a simple example, you win a R+K vs K or K+2p vs K against anyone: one simply knows how to win, and the opponent cannot stop it. So if the question is whether the position on the first diagram is technical in this sense - I'd say maybe not yet, but it has good chances to transform into one. What I mean is that white has to make a few moves: improve the king, do not allow the pawn blockade on dark squares, threaten to exchange a pair of rooks and so on, and then it'll win itself.

I'd expect myself to be able to win it in any case if I had maybe 10-15 minutes left. I'd also be very surprised if a GM (of course I assume GMs have better endgames technique than me) would not win such a position in their serious game irrespective of their opponent.
> 4 votes

# Answer
First with the specific position you give: I think this should be quite easy to win based on the following:

1. Black can't trade rooks. if the rooks are traded then White could easily win either by trading his remaining rook for the Bishop and pawn, or just the rook for Bishop where it creates a winning pawn endgame.
2. White has a passed pawn.
3. White has a clear path with the king. White can place his rooks on the b and c files; like b3 and c4, then c4 and b5 etc. which would shield the kings walk up the board.
After this White can double the rooks, say on the b-file, to generate threats of a rook trade check on the Black King.

If you play with the above plan you will see the analysis starts to go from +3 to +7.

Of course in general computers are harder to beat. It doesn't matter that it is an endgame, but it does seem more obvious how tough they are in such positions.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, endgame
---


title: What was Arpad Elo's own Elo rating?

text:
# Question
Title: What was Arpad Elo's own Elo rating?
I've found several sources that indicate that Arpad Elo was a "master-level chess player", but it's been very difficult to find any information about what Elo's own rating would have been under his own system - primarily because if you do the obvious Internet searches like `arpad elo rating`, you just get flooded with search results about the Elo rating system itself, and other players' Elo ratings. The Wikipedia article on Elo doesn't include any information about his own rating, and Chessmetrics doesn't include any information about Elo's rating either.

Is there any source that gives any information about what Elo's own rating would have been?

# Answer
Arpad Elo was rated 2065 in the August 5 1960 Chess Life ratings list. I believe this list was the first he appeared in that used his Elo system rather than the previous Harkness system. Elo turned 57 years old that month, and he was likely stronger than that when he was younger.

In the November 20 1950 ratings list, which used the Harkness system, Elo was rated 2266. In this system, this rating was considered expert level.
> 18 votes

# Answer
According to this article on the Chessbase site:

> Using his own rating system to estimate his playing strength, he calculated his best five-year average rating at 2230 – enough to have earned for him the national master title.

In this context, "national master" refers to the USCF National Master title.
> 14 votes

---
Tags: rating
---


# Question
Title: Why does Stockfish evaluate this Lichess puzzle position as so advantageous for Black?
```
[Event "Rated Rapid game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/tZI4OlZ3"]
[Date "2021.04.20"]
[White "Paulinos"]
[Black "Qedesh76"]
[FEN "r3qrk1/2pbbppp/2nppn2/1B6/1P1P4/P3PN2/1BQN1PPP/2R1K2R b Kq - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "1"]

1. Nxb4 axb4 2.Bxb5

```

Link to lichess exercise

I guessed my way through the puzzle, figuring it would be a discovered attack. If the pawn takes back the knight then I capture the bishop for a minor piece trade. I guessed that this was advantageous since Black has an open rook file.

But why does Stockfish think this position is so advantageous, with an evaluation -3.9, for Black? I followed the recommended lines a for a few moves. In certain lines where the White queen doesn't move, then the b4 pawn can be captured by the dark-squared bishop, setting up a powerful bishop pai. But other lines don't seem clearly so advantageous to me.

# Answer
I daresay we talk about 1...Nxb4 2.axb4 Bxb5. OK, maybe not -3 but...

* White can't castle for some time
* Solid extra pawn (3.Qxc7 Nd5 will end in a desaster)
* Don't object to having the a-file
* Bishop pair (not relevant yet)
* White's Bb2 is bad, and since probably ...d5 soon comes, that won't change
* Finally, want to play something else? c6 hangs and c7 indirectly.

Against myself I'd resign on the spot.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Lichess tactical exercises are generated with code using games on the site and Stockfish.

Sometimes they are not very accurate. The exercise you mention is one of those I downvote because even Stockfish gives an advantage for white, it doesn't earn material enough to consider the game won. If I were analyzing this game with my oponnent I would say as black "I am better. I have the bishop pair and white cannot castle easily while I am castled and developed". But I think the goal of the exercises is to have a winning position or a draw in disadvantage, not a better position that takes long to convert into a win.

For example, this exercise wouldn't pass the chesstempo filter, as said in his FAQ.

> **I have made a play that I am sure leads to a won ending, but it is marked as wrong. Why is this happening?**
>
> Making plays that do not lead to a short-term material advantage, but instead require playing a long and drawn-out finish before the material advantage is realized, can be risky in the tactical problems of Chess Tempo. The program may not have been able to look far enough into the future to see that the ending leads to a position with a material advantage, and therefore your play may score less than it deserves. As frustrating as it is, this seems reasonable, given that tactical problems are all about finding combinations, **not long-term victories in an endgame**. To avoid losing points in these situations, if you see a solution that you think you win because it leads to a long, won ending, perhaps you should think about looking more carefully for a faster tactical solution.

When exercises are downvoted they are removed from the list so remember to downvote this kind of exercises that don't lead to a clear advantage.
> 3 votes

# Answer
horrible weakness of the light squares is what has not been listed in the answers yet. I'd probably not evaluate it at -3 though (I don't do it in numbers anyway), but it's pretty hopeless for white.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, stockfish, puzzles
---


# Question
Title: Does Fritz 17 have extra features compared to othe Chessbase offerings?
For me, the strength of the chess engine is not that important as today almost all of the top engines are beyond human level. I want to use a chess program for training and analysis of my games.

If I understand correctly, Chessbase publishes several chess programs all using the same GUI. So in terms of graphics and probably the menu options all their chess programs look the same.

However, when it comes to features such as analysis or training, does Fritz 17 have anything special over other programs such as Komodo 14? Can it produce better quality commentaries or more meaningful probes to the opening books to make analysis more human like?

There are several similar questions here but they only deal with user interface rather than specifically analysis and training.

# Answer
Fritz 17 is really just the same Chessbase GUI bundled with a chess engine Fritz 17. Depend on what version you buy, your Chessbase product may come with MegaDatabase - a huge collection of master chess games. Fritz 17 doesn't give you that.

EDITED:

Fritz 17 is not a public chess engine in the sense that it only works for Chessbase. I'm not aware it runs on anything other than Chessbase GUI. But it's actually an advantage. The engine is able to offer things that a standard engine like Komodo can't do. A standard engine must comply with the UCI chess protocol, whereas a private engine bundled with GUI can do anything. The last time when I used Fritz, I remember it offered GUI advice not available in UCI protocol. I don't use it anymore because it doesn't run on Mac.

Komodo engine has skill levels.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I would say even if you buy Komodo, you will still need to use a GUI for it, so it will be very similar except for the engine you have,

on the side note, for analyzing games, Fritz has an option that I haven't see on Chessbase program and it's "compare analysis", so let say you have komod, fritz and stockfish, you can have them all look at your game and sometimes they have different plan, moves and even slightly different evaluation, which could be fun.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: chessbase, fritz
---


# Question
Title: Historical motivation for the 1200-1800ish rating average
Although there is some variation in rating systems (in chess), most systems put the starting value and the mean of all users somewhere around 1500. Some pools are higher, some are lower, but most have their means somewhere in the 1200-1800 range. As ratings only have relative meaning within their respective pools, scaling or translating all ratings within a pool will not make the rating system any less effective for assessing relative strength. So my question is: what is the historical reason that the means are usually in the 1200-1800 range? Which "natural" parameter choices led to these means? And why not e.g. 100, or around 0, with positive and negative ratings?

For newer rating systems that aim to replace older systems, I suppose the mean is just a consequence of trying to mimic the previous system as well as possible. Say Glicko replacing Elo, or Elo replacing whatever was before that. I've tried some digging, but some historical works are behind paywalls and I am unable to find the historical, initial motivation for parameters choices that led to these averages in the 1200-1800 range.

Any pointers to relevant (freely available) literature explaining this choice would be appreciated!

**Edit**: As pointed out, not all systems start out at 1500, and averages for e.g. USCF or FIDE ratings may not be exactly 1500. My question is specifically why, historically, someone chose approximately 1500 as the average or starting value (and not any other value), and who was the one that made this deliberate choice (rather than making the average be in the 1000-2000 range to mimic other systems). Maybe the initial choice was just "let's put beginner ratings at 1000" and the 1500ish mean followed from that, that's possible too; I'm just wondering what ultimately led to the 1500ish mean of many rating pools.

(If anyone has access to Elo's original book, maybe they could look up what motivated Elo to use something like 1500 as the baseline.)

**Edit 2**: While the formulas of the Glicko system may somehow incorporate 1500 as a "special" initial choice, observe that the Elo system is the predecessor and *clearly* does not need 1500 as the baseline. And surely Elo didn't choose 1500 as baseline only because Glicko would later "need" 1500 as the baseline.

So perhaps to make it more clear that I am not looking for tangential discussions about whether the 1500 value for Glicko is necessary, let me ask the closely related question to my original question: why did Elo use initial parameter choices that led to ~1500 as baseline? (That answer might be "because the predecessor to Elo used 1500 as baseline" so digging further may be necessary, but all discussions about Glicko's subsequent choices are irrelevant to this question about the historical motivation of Elo and its predecessors.)

**Edit 3**: As pointed out in the comments, sources suggest the Elo system was designed to give similar ratings/rating chances as the Harkness system used previously. So to find the answer to this question one has to answer the question: why did the Harkness system have/lead to 1200-1800ish rating averages?

# Answer
The first chess rating system, the Ingo system used in Germany, had very different numbers because in that system *lower is better*. So the ratings there have no relevance to the current scale used by modern rating systems.

The second chess rating system, the Harkness system used by USCF starting in 1950, already is calibrated almost the same as modern rating systems. In the original USCF announcement of the rating system it clearly says Class D below 1500, Class C between 1500-1700, Class B 1700-1900, Class A 1900-2100, Expert 2100-2300 and Master 2300-2500. This is the same as current ratings but shifted by 100 points. Acording to Wikipedia, the Harkness system caused ratings to deflate which forced them to both move the rating cutoffs down by 100 points and to switch to Elo. So Elo was originally calibrated to match the ratings of Harkness but adjusted down by 100. Unfortunately I can't find any sources about how Harkness chose his calibration. So unless someone has access to Harkness's private letters or similar sources, it is unlikely that we'll get a definitive answer.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I found a reference in a 1993 Chess Life article about Arpad Elo to one possible motivation of Harkness. GM Andy Soltis wrote (emphasis mine):

> Harkness's system resembled the Ingo, but used four digits and a top rating of about 2600. (Why four digits and not five? Or three? The English and Germans got along well with fewer digits than us. Today a typical British club player gets a rating of about 50 and the best Brits never reach 300. **Harkness felt fewer digits would leave too many players with the same rating.**)

And the article says this about Elo basing his scale on Harkness's:

> Elo decided to keep the Harkness structure, which postulated 2000 as the typical rating of "a strong club player." Later, Elo said it would have made more sense to place that level at 1000 — but that would mean some weak players would approach minus numbers.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The Glicko and Glicko-2 systems *require* that new players be given the rating of 1500 as one of the axioms. This is not to mimic existing systems, but simply to ensure the maths works out correctly (since Glicko and Glicko-2 don't just look at absolute rating differences between the players.)

Although the rating gain/loss for both players in a single game is not zero-sum, over a large playerbase and large number of games the mean rating of the entire playerbase will not vary significantly from 1500 (assuming no shenanigans).

The Elo rating system does not impose such a requirement.

Reading material:
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rating, history, elo
---