# Question
Title: How to know when it is time to trade down to an endgame?
Sirs,

After considerable endgame study (i.e. Jeremy Silman's complete endgame course), I am finding that there is a wealth of information about how to win endgames. However, I am noticing that there isn't as much information about knowing/judging when it is time to "trade down" to an endgame.

I'm not at all confused by the most basic principles such as "trade down to an endgame when you are a knight-ahead or better". However, I would love to see an outline (or a link to some kind of equivalent knowledge) addressing more detailed situations such as:

--a.) trading down to an endgame when white has two passed pawns on opposite sides of the board vs. black's poorly guarded pawn on the 7th rank.

--b.) win/lose/draw analysis of bishop only endgames when bishop are of same color, or Knight vs. bishop endgame success? etc, etc.

Does anyone know of a website, book, or resource addressing this niche subject of judging whether or not to trade down to an endgame?

Regards,

Brent

# Answer
The reason there isn't much information on when to trade down when there isn't a large material advantage is because it is obvious.

If you have a small advantage but you calculate that trading down will leave you with **an endgame which you know how to win** then trade down. Note that even if you are bishop and knight up (say something like KQBN v KQ) and can trade down to a KBN v K endgame and you know that theoretically it is winning for you **but you don't know how to win** then there is no point in trading down because it is very easy for the defender to last 50 moves and claim the draw against someone who lacks the knowledge. Try and win some other way while there is more material on the board.

Similarly if you are a pawn or two down but have the chance to trade down to an opposite coloured bishop endgame where you know because of your endgame knowledge that your opponent's extra pawn(s) are not going to be enough for him because you know how to draw that position then trade down.

**The difficult part is having the endgame knowledge in the first place**.

If you reach a position where you are trying to decide whether to trade down or not but don't know, it is not because nobody has given you the magic answer. It is because **you lack the endgame knowledge to judge the final position** after the trade down.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: endgame
---


title: Omitting piece letters in pgn

text:
# Question
Title: Omitting piece letters in pgn
Is it possible or common practice to omit piece letters (other than P) in PGN as long as the move is unambiguous?

E.g. h1xBh8

From what I understand from http://www.saremba.de/chessgml/standards/pgn/pgn-complete.htm#c8.2.3 it is not allowed. But then again, it's unambiguous. Has anybody ever seen a PGN game doing that?

# Answer
> 3 votes
It is not allowed by computer programs or by FIDE.

PGN is designed to be parsable by computer programs. Those computer programs depend on PGN files actually adhering to the specification. It would be similarly unambiguous if you numbered the ranks 9-16 instead of 1-8, but computer programs would not be able to read your game scores.

If you are not concerned about computers reading your moves and just want to save time writing on your scoresheet, you are still out of luck. The FIDE rules of chess say

> C. FIDE recognises for its own tournaments and matches only one system of notation, the Algebraic System, and recommends the use of this uniform chess notation also for chess literature and periodicals. Scoresheets using a notation system other than algebraic may not be used as evidence in cases where normally the scoresheet of a player is used for that purpose. An arbiter who observes that a player is using a notation system other than the algebraic should warn the player of this requirement.

and

> C.8 Each move of a piece is indicated by a) **the abbreviation of the name of the piece in question** and b) the square of arrival. There is no hyphen between a) and b). Examples: Be5, Nf3, Rd1.

---
Tags: pgn, notation
---


# Question
Title: In what cases is it good to play the Maroczy Bind in the Symmetrical English?
I'm thinking about playing the Maroczy Bind with White in the Symmetrical English (1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 - notice that I start with 1. Nf3).

But I don't know exactly in what cases I should play it.

So I would like to know if these four sentences are true or not:

1. The Maroczy Bind is good for White if White places his King's Bishop on e2.
2. The Maroczy Bind is not good for White if White fianchettoes his King's Bishop on g2.
3. The Maroczy Bind is not good for White if Black places his King's Bishop on e7.
4. The Maroczy Bind is good for White if Black fianchettoes his King's Bishop on g7.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I have only ever played the Maroczy Bind against the sicilian and in the light of this limited knowledge all your propositions make some sense.

1./2. Be2 is where you normally place your bishop in the sicilian binds and it makes sense to refrain from e4 (at least for a time) if you fianchettoed the bishop. I have also read that after the fianchetto the square e4 is kept free for some possible piece maneuvers (Only Ne4 after d6 and e6 have been played comes to my mind).

3./4. The Maroczy is the main line against the acc. dragon, but not against the Paulsen/Kan. So one could deduce that the black bishop is better off on e7. But it is very playable against both and there is also the matter of move orders and the strength of alternative lines, so this probably doesn't make much of a difference.

In the end this is very much a question of concrete lines. There probably isn't an easy recipe for when to whip out the Maroczy Bind.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You need to buy a book on the English opening covering these structures. Chess Explained: The English Opening by Zenon Franco (ISBN: 9781904600596) is a decent start.

---
Tags: opening, theory, fianchetto, english-opening
---


# Question
Title: fastest AI algorithms for quick chess engine?
I am looking for some authenticated books , tutorials ,reference sites for quickest algorithms implementation for chess engine creation.

Thank you. regards Keshav

# Answer
If I read your question correctly, you're looking for the quickest way to code your own chess engine, not the "fastest" algorithm. This is important, because there is no such thing as the "fastest" algorithm; your algorithm might evaluate positions very quickly, but if it doesn't understanding that a queen is mort valued than a pawn, your "fastest" algorithm is useless.

The quickest way to code your own chess engine is to start with something that works.

The TSCP chess engine is simple enough for you to get started.

**PS**: In case you're really looking for the "fastest" algorithm. You'll simply need to code a board generator. Simply take the first move off from the generator. No need to do an alpha-beta search.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


title: how to break through using pawn storm

text:
# Question
Title: how to break through using pawn storm
This is a game I played against my phone. I think I have an attacking chance with pawn storm. But staring at the situation for a bit, I can't find a plan to bring down black's defense.

When attacking with g and h pawns against a flat f7/g7/h7 structure, where do my pawns usually go (g5/h6 or g6/h5?)? How to coordinate my other pieces?

Any general suggestion or illustrative games I can follow to see how this is done?

Thanks

# Answer
> 1 votes
The idea of a pawn storm is to exchange pawns and open files; so the 'usual' defence against a pawn storm is to keep the files closed, which often entails responding to an offer to swap pawns by advancing your own, e.g. if white plays h6, black will want to play ...g6.

So from the attacker's viewpoint, you will want to make use of the weaknesses created by any change in your attacker's pawn structure, or force a pawn exchange. In the position you have given, your pieces are not too well placed; only your knight plays a role in the attack on the king, and the queen is ready. The bishop on f4 is a liability in lines where the f-file is opened, and you would much rather have a rook on g1.

Personally, I would prefer to start with Rg1 because in almost all cases, you will need to put a rook on the g-file. ~~In fact, after this move you are threatening 2. Qd4, forcing 2 ...f6 where black's position collapses after 3. Nxg7.~~ You are threatening 2. h5 and 3. g6, after which your position will be crushing, because of the piece sacrifices you have available.

You usual concern as the attacker (especially when material is equal) is the counterattack of the opponent, as the success of your attack is only a matter of time. In the case of this position, black's a4-a3 advance is too slow (you can even ignore it and allow ...axb2 and your position is not immediately busted yet), so you can even ave the luxury of making another prepatory move like Be3.

For any attack against the king, the attacker generally wants to force the advance of the pawns covering the king, so pawns on f7-g7-h7 are usually the most resistant to an attack. Often he does this by tempting the move ...h6 by placing a piece on g5. This position looks much like the Petroff after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nc3 Nxc3 6. dxc3, and is probably what you played if I had to guess. I recall Morozevich winning a game in this line as white, which you could probably look up.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There are many plans for White here. One is h5 and then g6 depending on whether the Knight on f5 hangs after fxg6. If instead black plays ...h6 you sack a piece on h6. Otherwise you can consider gxh7 check and attacking on the g file. Another plan is h6 and opening lines on the kingside. It seems that your pieces are not that well co-ordinated for these plans though.

All of this depends on concrete analysis. I would suggest the first move as 1.h5, with the idea h6, Qd4 and Qxg7 checkmate. If Black plays 1...f6 thwarting this idea then g6 and transposes to the ideas above. If Black plays 2...f6 then 3.fxg7. If 1...g6 then you have the option of hxg6 at any point in the future. edit eg after Rh1.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The thing is that pawn storms work best if the centre is closed. Otherwise piece activity in the centre of the board usually easily out weights the benefits of a pawn storm.

The dictum goes: Counter a flank attack with a strike in the centre!

Here the closest thing to a counter strike in the centre is 1…f6. This opens the g-file for you, but it also activates the Bd8 and the Rf8. Especially the Rf8 is nasty, because you have two pieces and a pawn lined up on the f-file and they all lack protection.

Now if you had a rook on g1, you could answer 1…f6 with 2.g6. That would be pretty sweet because 2…h6 runs into Bxh6 and 2...hxg6 opens the g-file without opening the f-file. This leads me to the conclusion that h4 may have been a mistake. Still, 1…f6 2.g6 hg 3.Nd4 might still give you real attacking chances.

If for some reason black doesn't play f6, advancing your pawns is not very convincing, because you have a hard time opening the g-file without opening the f-file for black. Better you regroup with Rg1-g3, possibly f3 if Re8 comes. Later Be3-d4 is a strong idea.

---
Tags: pawns, attack
---


# Question
Title: How do I go about learning the Najdorf Sicilian?
I want to play and learn the Najdorf Sicilian. I know that white has three main options:

6.Bg5 6.Be3 6.Bc4

But I don't know much more than that. Furthermore, I want to play the Open Sicilian as white and against the Najdorf play 6.Bg5, so I think for me it's worth learning these variations.

Should I get Starting Out: Najdorf Sicilian?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Probably(I haven't read it) , other options are a video series eg

https://chess24.com/en/learn/advanced/video/a-complete-najdorf-repertoire/najdorf-introduction

or a more detailed book eg

http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/49/grandmaster\_repertoire\_6\_-\_the\_sicilian\_defence\_by\_lubomir\_ftacnik/

or

https://www.newinchess.com/The\_Sharpest\_Sicilian\_2012-p-1523.html.

In general I would recommend the Starting Out repertoires for anyone under 2000 FIDE.

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, najdorf
---


# Question
Title: What is the average age to become a grandmaster?
On average, what is the age of people when they obtain the title of international master or grandmaster? I also wonder how the age distribution looks like.

# Answer
Brilliant little data mining project!

I used the wiki list of GMs and wrote a quick and dirty script to extract the data. Feel free to use and expand/alter it, if you are interested.

As it turns out, the average age for reaching GM is just above 28. It is, however, skewed by "old" generation players and players from time before GM title was a thing. It was officially introduced in 1950 and some (old) players were awarded it at the time. It is intriguing to look at average age in different generations of players. And so:

* For players born after 1945, the average is slightly above 26 years old.
* For players born after 1970, the average is slightly above 23 years old.
* For players born after 1975, the average is slightly above 22 years old.
* For players born after 1980, the average is 21 years old.
* For players born after 1985, the average is just shy of 20 years old.
* For players born after 1990, the average is 18.5 years old.

Clearly, on average, people are becoming a GM faster nowadays! The age distribution (for players born after 1945) is as follows:

In case it is of interest, the two countries "producing" GMs on average at lowest age are India and China - both at 21 years old. Countries with most GMs (all time) are Russia (by huge margin), Ukraine, Germany, USA and Hungary.
> 29 votes

---
Tags: statistics, grandmaster, titles, international-master
---


# Question
Title: What is the effect of aging on chess ability?
Based on documented evidence, at what age would someone normally expect to see his chess results start to decline?

# Answer
> 1 votes
According to this study chess grandmasters peak at age 31.4.

This study confuses the hell out of me, but there is one sensible chart at page 20, that seems to indicate that you can still improve a little bit in your thirties and generally hold your playing level into your mid-forties. After that the decline becomes noticable.

The slight discrepancy between these two studies is easily explained by the fact that the first only looks at grandmasters, whereas the second examines more than 40,000 players. In fact I would assume that the very top players peak even earlier these days.

I found a very good chess.com article about this topic. This guy analysed more than 71,000 players and found a rating peak in the late twenties. Until you are eighty you'll lose 200 Elo points on average, which really isn't all that much.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There are many exceptions of people performing on a high (and sometimes higher level than before) when they get older. The most obvious are: Boris Gelfand who reached a World Championship match in his forties, Vishy Anand who is currently World No 2 and in his forties, Victor Korchnoi, who reached two World Championship matches in his forties, and many others on the amateur scale. Even at 80 depending on the level you play at there may be room for improvement. It might be worth looking up a coach.

---
Tags: performance
---


# Question
Title: The moves leading to the winning combination
We've all worked tactics problems. I can do those pretty well. Yet I have never been able to pull off one of these amazing combinations in my games. Not once.

These tactical situations don't arise from nowhere - they are created.

I had a bit of an epiphany recently. I had viewed positional play as an alternative to Tal-like tactical play. You did one or the other, Karpov or Tal. Now I don't think this is true. Fischer said, "Tactics arise from a superior position." Now I think that positional play leads up to the combination by leaving the opponent no good squares. When he moves on a bad square, a tactic likely appears.

I would like you all to give me advice on how I can learn to find the moves before the combination. I seriously think this is an enormous gap in my knowledge. This is why my games are boring. I shuffle my pieces without a clear plan, hoping for some combination to appear. How can it, when I do not actively seek to make it happen? When I win, it's because I defend well and the attacker destroys himself on me. To make matters worse, when I realized I defend pretty well, I started concentrating on defenses that were solid. A little is good, more is better, right?? This has probably only enabled me to strengthen my bad habits.

Anyway, please, save me from me.

# Answer
Your situation sounds a lot like my own - in the past, I tended to use a very "defensive" style of play, preferring closed openings, subtle position play, etc. If the opponent made a mistake and I could win a pawn with some clever tactics, it'd be enough to win the game, most of the time.

This approach is probably perfectly fine if you are aiming for a respectable rating (as we've often heard, simply not blundering will see you through to the 1800s), but for some reason, I began to lose interest in chess (probably from too many draws and eeked out wins).

After a break of several years, I started playing "strictly for fun", with friends in person, and online. This has given me the opportunity to experiment more with play style, and I found out that I actually prefer an aggressive style. It was surprising for me just how often this style of play would lead to the opportunity for exciting tactics. My experience on making the transition:

**Play unrated games:** It's difficult to experiment (wildly) with your play style while trying to play your strongest game. You should still review your games and try to learn from them, but you shouldn't worry if you lose.

**Stop playing drawish openings:** Some openings are simply more suitable for aggressive play than others. Prefer open games versus closed ones. As white, you have a tempo advantage, and you should try to make the most of it. As black, you can try to unbalance the game, as opposed to simply letting white run the show (e.g. Sicilian Defense). I've always found the Danish Gambit to be a wonderful opening. Get someone to play this opening with from the "Accepted" position, to appreciate what an aggressive style can lead to - you're two full pawns down, but have a huge advantage in development (aside - unfortunately, the Schlechter variation is strong for black, and almost everyone knows it nowadays).

**Don't use your aggressive style on computers:** Perhaps it's just me, but computers nowadays are way too good at tactics. They see things coming a mile away, and simply won't walk into your clever tactics, unless they are 6+ moves ahead. It's not fun to keep getting floored by the computer. Humans make mistakes more often, but more importantly, do not see every possible combination to at least 4 moves (unlike computers).

**Piece position is important:** This goes without saying, but having the pieces there when you need them makes all the difference. Attacks are often won or lost on a single tempo difference, so don't get tricked into giving up tempo, and try to get some from your opponent!

**Build pressure:** If in doubt, build pressure, complicate the situation. Look for a weak spot, and start aiming pieces at it. Again, you'd be surprised at how often a tense situation can lead to a brilliant combo / quick win.

These are all the basic, non-tactics related tips I have. To reiterate, I think you should just play many games in a more aggressive style. You will probably lose a lot at first, but you will also get a lot more practice in attacking, both strategically and tactically. Eventually the results will come, and if you decide to switch back to a more defensive style, the lessons learned will stay with you.

**Edit:** To expand on the comment about playing against computers, I find that their simulation of "weaker" human players is quite badly done. One well known program, for example, seems to change the player's heuristics in favour of different pieces ("likes knights", etc), and throws in a few major blunders at lower levels, while playing 99% accurately most of the time, thinking many moves ahead, and having an excellent opening repertoire. I don't really find this to be a realistic representation of a real player. Setting the AI up yourself, to have a shorter think time than you (and to not think on your clock time) may work slightly better, although typically leads to weak endgame play. In the end, it's more fun to just play against people, and with the internet, there's plenty of opportunity for that.
> 15 votes

# Answer
I'd say study some Alekhine. He is perhaps the best tactician before Tal and the best tactician ever IMHO (though, not flawless), since Tal was always somehow easygoing and missed Alekhine's steel willpower.

Amateurs would just praise Alekhine (he is known as the genius of combination, while Tal is known as the wizard of combination) and would judge him by the results of his games. Study some classical combination games played by Alekhine and commented by himself. You will often notice how he would invoke a reason for a possible combination (a weakened field, a material superiority on some board sector etc), how he'd start analyzing variants and find a defense, thus concluding that the combination is still premature. Then he'd make another preparation move. And at some point the position on the board just "explodes".
> 8 votes

# Answer
> I shuffle my pieces without a clear plan

Here lies the heart of your question, IMHO. I'm not a GM, but I can tell you how I find my combinations during play.

1. "Study the battlefield". Each opening has weak points. For example, in the French Defense, Advance Variation, Black may have problems with f7 and g7 pawns. Other example, in the Italian Game and many gambits after 1. e4 the weak point for Black is f7. You should always keep an eye on those spots, waiting for the right moment to strike. Sometimes you can look for combinations related to those squares (in the example above, a Queen exchange followed by a Black King capture, then Nxf7 forking King and Rook), or try to exploit other weaknesses when your opponent's pieces overdefend those squares. Of course, if you know where to watch you'll find those combinations more easily.
2. focus on every possible tactical problem your opponent may encounter. Then you'll spot them in the exact moment they appear. Does your opponent may be mated on the 8th rank? Does your opponent's Queen protect 2 vital squares at the same time? Does your opponent have a weakness and a hanging piece at the same time? And so on. Detect these situations, in 10-20% of the cases they may become the key for a combination.
3. improve your position threatening something. If your goal is an aggressive play that might win a full point during the middlegame through a combination, you have to choose from many possible moves the one that make your position better AND threats an attack. If you are able to conduct your pieces well, then one of those threats will become the combination you search.
4. when you're in great positional advantage, look for every possible way to worsen your opponent's position. If sacking a piece may crush a defense, don't exitate. Be careful, though: we're not Tal. :) If you find a safer way to win the game, DON'T force an attack.

I play always with these points in mind. I usually win my games during the middlegame, gaining decisive material advantage or even forcing a mate. Of course you cannot forget the golden-rule: improve your position at every move. Don't go chasing combinations that do not exist. But I think you're not that kind of player. :)

A final note: since you're a good defender, you may play solid games waiting for your opponent to destroy himself with his own hands. Petrosjan became World Champion that way. :)
> 8 votes

# Answer
One idea which helps a surprising amount when considering tactical possibilities is to look at what you are thinking about, and reverse the order of the moves.

If you think you can checkmate the king by sacking the bishop first then the rook, try briefly considering the opposite, and then consider other permutations. Doing this can make things clearer, especially if you are trying to calculate many moves deep.
> 5 votes

# Answer
If you want to get better at combinations, play tactical moves, such as pinning pieces with a bishop, moving rooks to open files, launching double attacks with a queen and a second piece, etc.

In one of my first combinations (playing Black), I had a rook on a king file with two bishops between it and the enemy king. I moved the first bishop `e7xNa3`. White had to recapture. Then I moved my light-squared bishop, `e6-g4`, attacking the queen on d1, and discovering a check with my rook on e8.

If you look for them, there will be plenty of opportunities to set things up. Then let your opponent look for a way to avoid them.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Possibly the most pertinent question I have seen on here so far. For me the answer is simple, get a book on attacking. The classic "Art of Attack in Chess" by V. Vukovic is highly regarded, and a for a modern classic the "Attacking Manuals" by Jacob Aagaard is also good. Both of these books focus on how to get an attacking position where combinations are much more often seen.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


title: How to switch the engine off in Arena?

text:
# Question
Title: How to switch the engine off in Arena?
I use Arena. I want to input my game and create a pgn. But I have a problem, because if I make a move, the engine automatically makes a move as well. I want to make moves for white and for black.

I don't know how to switch the engine off.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Version 3.5: Under the "List of Moves" Panel/TabControl there is a toolbar. The last component on the toolbar is the "Edit" button. The tooltip tells you when this button is down, the engines do not respond and you can enter your moves.

# Answer
> 2 votes
In the `Engines` dropdown menu at the top of the screen, you can turn off the engine. This will allow you to make moves for both sides.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Just turn on the Edit button in the toolbar under the move list.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I don't have an answer, but I can't make comments. Neither of these two answers work for me. I don't have an "edit" or "move" option on my toolbar, and when I when I do the "close engine" option, it only works for that one turn--i.e., the engine comes back on as soon as I make a move, so I would have to do it after every single move. Like the original question, I can't find a way to do something that should be incredibly simple--just turn off the engine so I can play a 2-player game. I have Arena 3.5

Update: I didn't find an answer how to do this in Arena, but in another thread I found a user recommended Jerry for this purpose, and it seems to work great.

---
Tags: engines, software, arena
---


# Question
Title: Arena Question - How Do I Set it So Arena Has a Time Limit But I Don't?
I just download the arena chess program which is a chess playing GUI. Frankly, I'm kind of lost. I am trying to play chess games with the engines that come with it. How can I set it so that the computer has a time limit for moves, but I don't? It seems to default to "tournament" play mode. I've tried just setting the time limit high, but then the software also takes a long time to move, which I don't want. I would assume that many people would want to do this, but I cannot find the answer.

# Answer
Version 3.5: I simply use from the menu: Levels/Adjust and from the dialog box select "Time per move". Whatever time you put in limits the computer's analysis time but of course you take as much time as you need to respond. :)

Of course same goes for "Fixed search depth".
> 3 votes

# Answer
I could not find that feature in Arena 3.0.

For 3.0, your only option seems to let the engine play in infinite mode, and you take your time to respond. Once you have given it enought time to think, you can force the engine to move by hitting the space bar, or the "force move" icon on the top menu of the GUI.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: software, arena
---


# Question
Title: Would the best mobile phone chess app be a favorite in a match against Carlsen?
Assume that the phone is one of today's high-end phones, e.g. the Samsung Galaxy S6. Also, assume that the match is a classical time limit match.

# Answer
Magnus Carlsen was beaten by his own chess app, but it wasn't a serious game and he did it for a presentation. I don't think that game meant anything. While I don't have data for the World Champion, I'm quite certain one of the former world women chess champions was overwhelmed by my iPhone mobile chess app. I also got similar reports for grandmaster over FIDE 2600.

To appreciate the power of a mobile chess app, we should review the match between Deep Fritz and Kramnik in 2006. According to the wikipedia, the machine had two Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs. Wikipedia states the CPUs have clock speed of 1.06 GHz to 3.33 GHz. The wikipedia also states the latest Apple A8 chip has clock speed of 1.1 GHz to 1.4 GHz. Please keep in mind clock speed is a very rough guide to performance. Anyway, the Apple iPhone is *at least* competitive to an Intel Core 2 Duo in terms of raw clock speed. It has been reported the older Apple A7 chip has performance close to desktop. You should be assured the latest Apple A8 chip can give any grandmaster a challenge.

Let's take a look at the unofficial rating list for Android chess engines. While the rating scale is not related to the FIDE rating, it's hard to believe Carlsen will have an easy time against Komodo 9 on Galaxy 6, which has a rating of 3239 in the list.

Apart from the hardware, the engine algorithm has improved dramatically since Kramnik's match. We now have access to everything that a super chess engine should do; just look at the source code of Stockfish. Back in 2006 when the match was played, all of the strongest engines were closed source.

The version that Kramnik played was a 32 bits engine. This is a bit embarrassing in today's standard. The stronger mobile chess apps (including my own) are now 64 bits.

We don't have any concrete data because no grandmaster has played a serious match against a mobile phone (because there is no money involved). What we can do is infer from historical data, software improvement and rating list. **I am confident Carlsen will be beaten by the strongest mobile chess app on the app store.**

Finally, while Carlsen is the best player *against human players*, he's probably not the best player *against computers*. For example, Carlsen's usually trick; pushing hard in a drawn endgame would not work against a computer. Computer engine will never blunder and will never crack.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: engines, carlsen
---


# Question
Title: Can White win the endgame from game Kramnik-Carlsen, London 2010?
```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "8/6p1/7p/2k5/8/p5P1/B5P1/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

Can White win this endgame?

# Answer
According to the analysis of GM Mueller, white is winning.

The game went: 65.Kf2 Kd4 66.Kf3 Kd3 67.g4 Kd2 68.Be6 Kd3. And now 69.g5! wins in all the lines, while Kramnik played 69.Kg3?, after which the ending is drawn.

The entire game, with the analysis of GM Mueller:

```

[FEN ""]
[Event "2nd London Chess Classic"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "2010.12.14"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Kramnik, Vladimir"]
[Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D07"]
[WhiteElo "2791"]
[BlackElo "2802"]
[Annotator "Müller,Karsten"]
[PlyCount "171"]
[EventDate "2010.12.06"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "7"]
[EventCountry "ENG"]
[EventCategory "19"]
[StartPly "128"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nf3 Bg4 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bf4 Bd6 6. Bg3 Nf6 7. e3 O-O 8. a3
Ne7 9. Qb3 b6 10. Ne5 c5 11. Nxg4 Nxg4 12. Rd1 Bxg3 13. hxg3 Nf6 14. cxd5 exd5
15. Be2 Qd6 16. Qc2 h6 17. O-O c4 18. b3 Qxa3 19. bxc4 dxc4 20. Bf3 Rab8 21.
Ra1 Qd6 22. Nb5 Qd7 23. Qxc4 a5 24. e4 Rfc8 25. Qe2 Rc6 26. Rab1 Rd8 27. Rfd1
Rdc8 28. d5 Rc2 29. Qe3 R2c5 30. Nd4 Re8 31. Qd3 Qd6 32. Qa6 Rb8 33. Nb3 Rc2
34. Nd4 Rc5 35. Nb3 Rc2 36. Qd3 Rcc8 37. Nd2 Ng6 38. Be2 Qc5 39. Rb5 Qc3 40. f4
a4 41. e5 Nd7 42. Qxc3 Rxc3 43. Ne4 Rc7 44. Ra1 Ra7 45. d6 Ngf8 46. Nc3 Nc5 47.
Nd5 Ra5 48. Rxb6 Rxb6 49. Nxb6 Nfe6 50. Bc4 Kf8 51. f5 Nd8 52. Rf1 Ncb7 53. Re1
a3 54. e6 fxe6 55. fxe6 Nxd6 56. e7+ Ke8 57. exd8=R+ Kxd8 58. Rd1 Kc7 59. Ba2
Rg5 60. Nd5+ Kc6 61. Nc3 {#} Rc5 62. Rxd6+ Kxd6 63. Ne4+ Kc6 64. Nxc5 Kxc5 {#}
65. Kf2 Kd4 66. Kf3 Kd3 67. g4 Kd2 68. Be6 Kd3 {#} {A miraculous escape. It is
hard to believe that Magnus Carlsen got away with a draw despite being down a
piece.} 69. Kg3 $2 {Kramnik allows the king to penetrate too deeply.} (69. g5 $1 {Hiarcs 13, running on a 12-core machine and providing added information to the live commentary, calmly spat out a mate score with an irreductible winning line.
Here it is with some added analysis to clarify.} hxg5 (69... h5 70.
Kf4 Kd4 71. g3 Kc5 72. Kf5 Kd6 73. Ba2 Ke7 74. Kg6 Kf8 75. Kh7 $18) 70. g3 {
opening the gates to the deadly endgame weapon: the Zugzwang, which takes the
day once more.} Kd4 71. Kg4 Ke3 72. Kxg5 {#and here all attempts to defeat the
triangulation with the bishop will fail.} Kf3 (72... Kf2 73. Kf4 Kg2 74. g4 Kh3
75. g5+ Kh4 76. Kf5 Kh3 (76... Kh5 77. Bf7+ Kh4 78. Ba2 Kh5 79. Be6 Kh4 80. Kg6
) 77. Bb3 Kh4 78. Ba2 Kh5 79. Be6 Kh4 80. Kg6) 73. Kh4 g6 74. Bf7 g5+ 75. Kh3
Kf2 76. Kg4 Kg2 {and now a triangulation with the bishop wins it.} 77. Ba2 Kf2
78. Bd5 $18) 69... Ke3 70. Kh4 (70. g5 {is no longer good enough. Ex:} Ke4 (
70... Kd4 $2 71. Kf4 hxg5+ 72. Kxg5 Ke3 73. Kf5 Kf2 74. g4 Kg3 75. g5 Kh4 76.
Kg6 $18) (70... h5 $2 71. Kh4 g6 72. g4 hxg4 73. Kxg4 Ke4 74. Ba2 Ke5 75. Bf7
$18) (70... hxg5 $2 71. Kg4 Kf2 72. g3 Kg2 73. Ba2 Kf2 74. Bd5 Ke3 75. Kxg5 Kd4
76. Ba2 Ke4 77. Kg4 Ke3 78. Bb1 Kf2 79. Kf4 Kg2 80. Ba2 Kf2 81. g4 Kg2 82. g5
Kh3 83. Kf5 Kh4 84. Bb3 Kh5 85. Be6 Kh4 86. Kg6 $18) 71. Kg4 Ke5 72. Ba2 Ke4
73. g3 Ke3 74. Bb1 Kf2 75. g6 h5+ 76. Kxh5 Ke3 77. Kg5 Kd4 78. Kf5 Kd5 79. Ba2+
Kd6 {and Black has succeeded in securing the draw.}) 70... Kf2 71. Bd5 (71. Kh5
{fails because the white bishop is overwhelmed after} Kxg2 72. Kg6 Kg3 73. Kxg7
a2 74. Bxa2 Kxg4 75. Kxh6 $11) 71... g6 72. Kh3 g5 $1 $11 {White cannot leave
the kingside without losing the g4 pawn.} 73. Kh2 Kf1 74. Be6 Kf2 75. Bc4 Ke3
76. Kg3 Kd4 77. Be6 Ke3 78. Kh2 Kf2 79. Bc4 Ke3 80. Kg1 Kf4 81. Be6 Ke5 82. Bb3
Kf4 83. Be6 Ke5 84. Bb3 Kf4 85. Be6 Ke5 86. Bb3 1/2-1/2

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, carlsen, kramnik
---


title: Why this is the best move?

text:
# Question
Title: Why this is the best move?
I'm new here, so I just like chess and I don’t study too deeply. I could not understand the move Qxe5. Can someone explain to me?

# Answer
> 10 votes
The move exploits three things: 1. The black knight on `f4` is trapped and will fall. 2. The black pawn on `d6` is pinned. 3. The black King is trapped behind its own pawns allowing the threat of a back-rank mate.

1. Qxe5 dxe5 2. Rxd8+ Qf8 3. Rxf8+ Kxf8 and White has stolen a pawn
2. Qxe5 Qxb3 2. Rxd6 and White has a lovely game

# Answer
> -2 votes
This is the best move because if the pawn on D6 were to take the Queen, the following move would be to checkmate with the D2 rook.

---
Tags: tactics, positional-play, beginner, queen-sacrifice
---


title: Chess books for master level players

text:
# Question
Title: Chess books for master level players
Chess books written by Aagaard, Dvoretsky and Kasparov are suitable books for master level players. I have recently discovered the book *Perfect Your Chess* by Volokitin & Grabinsky which is similar in vein. What other chess books are suitable for master level players?

I use the term *master level players* to refer to players who are at a level equivalent to 2200+ FIDE rating. Books suggested should:

* be suitable for a general master level player.
* contain sufficient material that will stimulate a master level player.
* be useful in the training of a master level player.

# Answer
> 3 votes
**Openings:**

Questions of Modern Chess Theory by Isaac Lipnitsky - a Soviet classic. Gets into the ideas behind opening theory in general.

For specific opening lines - the Grandmaster Repertoire series tends to be quite good.

**Middlegame:**

Dvoretksy's Analytical Manual \- I didn't get too far through it but it is an incredible workout.

**Endgame:**

Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, of course. If you learn everything in this book you will have endgame knowledge that far surpasses most masters.

Practical Rook Endings \- Korchnoi. Quite expensive in this listing but I found one for $15 a few years ago.

Most books by John Nunn.

**General:**

Any well-regarded selection of annotated games from a GM is immensely helpful. Keres, Tal and Shirov's collections are great, to name a few.

# Answer
> 2 votes
A few other good books targeting stronger players:

(1) *Imagination in Chess* by Paata Gaprindashvili (master-level tactics problems)

(2) *How to Play Chess Endgames* by Karsten Muller and Wolfgan Pajeken (a book about endgame technique, as opposed to endgame theory)

(3) *Learn from the Legends* by Mihail Marin (a study of world champions' play in position-types in which they were particularly strong);

(4) *A Practical Guide to Rook Endgames* by Nikolay Minev (lots of instructive material).

By the way, unless you are a rook endgame specialist and have mastered all the rook endgame material in Dvoretsky and the Minev book you should probably avoid Korchnoi's rook endgame book mentioned above, because Korchnoi's book is aimed at a really high level (more like 2400+ rather than 2200+).

---
Tags: books, training
---


# Question
Title: Studying Chess for the Ambitious Intermediate
I'm about 1700 ELO, and I've recently started playing regularly in tournaments. I love playing, and I love the competition. My main goal is to be a 2000+ player.

I got to 1700 by simply doing tactics problems and playing as carefully as I can to not make dumb tactical mistakes in my games. I can beat weaker players this way, but I usually get outplayed against stronger players who just don't make obviously bad moves. I must study stuff other than tactics if I want to get better.

Thing is, I feel there is just too much to study. I can spare 3-4 hours a day on chess, but I cannot do anything constructive because I'm trying to learn everything: books on my most frequently played opening lines, books on pawn structures, books on planning, books on endgame studies, books on instructive master games, books everywhere! And then there is practicing my calculation and analysis by playing solitaire chess, and analyzing my own games to figure out my weaknesses, and improving my board vision. I can go on, but you get the idea.

If I was focusing on any one of those things I would be fine, but doing all of them is overwhelming. So the best way to figure out what to do is to ask people who are already at the point I want to be. 2000+ ELO players, how was your daily training (when you were not playing at some tournament)?

Obviously there are different ways to train, but I'd like to hear about these different ways so that I can have an idea about how to get started on making my own custom program that I can stick to.

# Answer
> 13 votes
First of all, there is no method that will just make you half an Elo point stronger each and every day. Chess improvement usually happens in leaps and bounds with long phases of seeming stagnation in between.

The reason you feel overwhelmed is that you focus on the result instead of the process. And you realise that between the desired result and your current state there is still so much work to do. And where to start?

The answer is that it doesn't really matter where you start. If you immerse yourself in chess for several hours a day, you *will* get better. It is not so much what exactly you do that is important, it is the attitude of mental activity and joyful exploration. Otherwise you will just lose motivation or never really get started.

Personally I played through lots and lots of books, basically what ever chess book I could get my hands on. But I know other people who got over 2000 Elo just by playing many tournaments (like rapid tournaments basically every weekend).

I also always solved a lot of puzzles. Played against myself (trying to find nice combinations), played against a board computer, probably didn't play enough tournaments.

My personal advice would be: Play as many tournament games as possible. Playing chess is a practical skill. In between tournaments do tactics and stuff that is fun for you. Go and get just one book at a time. If you need something really structured, do the Yusupov books.

# Answer
> 4 votes
My advice is 2 fold:

1. Work on the middle game and endgame principles you struggle with the most
2. To identify your weaknesses, either analyse your games or work with a coach for a few hours a week (preferably both)

**Explanation for point 1:**

From your post you sound like you've hit a wall with tactics, and now you need to learn positional play. Say that you find that you allow your opponent too many chances for counterplay. Use your existing books to study *prophylaxis*, the art of stopping your opponent's plan. This increases the likelihood of them making a tactical mistake, which you already know how to win.

**Explanation for point 2:**

This is quite self explanatory - working on your weaknesses improves your game most effectively. Having a stronger player direct you and help explain the concepts, then direct your self study will help you become really strong.

P.S.1: It's tempting to spend a lot of time studying openings, but this would be a waste of effort. I'm rated almost 2058 elo and my opponents come out of book at move 5 more often than not. The problem is is that these are not sufficiently large errors to win straight away. There is still a lot of chess (middlegame and endgame) before you win

P.S.2: Don't buy more books or resources. Switching between lots of different resources can be quite confusing.

P.S.3: I'd be remiss to not mention the openings at all. My advice is to keep your repertoire simple. For example, I always open with 1. d4, because I like it and I feel I understand it quite well for my level. I have one response to 1. e4 (the Caro-Kann), and one against 1. d4 (the Slav). Again, they're in my style, and that's all that really matters for openings, as long as they don't lose on the spot!

# Answer
> 2 votes
I would advise the following: try not to not spend too much time studying openings, but find some solid openings that suit you, and stick with them rather than moving around. Play as many tournament games (or at least serious games) as possible; work hard at the board, and analyze your tournament games afterwards. Play more than you study, and don't try to study too much (either time-wise or material-wise): emphasize quality of study time (focusing and putting in some effort) over quantity of study time (studying on autopilot doesn't help much, no matter how much you study). And try to remember during the entire process that chess is supposed to be fun.

I just want to emphasize that playing in tournaments and playing against stronger players is the most important thing. No one gets strong from studying alone. Most of my actual studying time involved only a handful of books (The original Encyclopedia of Chess Middlegame Combinations, a collection of Paul Keres' games, Keres' Practical Chess Endings, and a single volume of games from Informant). However, the correlation between the amount of time I spend studying and my rate of improvement was not very high. Instead, my rate of improvement was greatest during the time periods I was most active as a tournament player: that is, the last three years of high school, and the two years immediately following my graduation from college. In fact, my only two periods of substantial improvement corresponded rather precisely with the periods in which I played the most tournament chess. Although I sometimes studied chess in periods when I was not an active tournament player, this studying did not seem to have a very significant impact on my overall chess strength.

# Answer
> 1 votes
From 1700 to 2000 I

Changed around my openings a lot. 1.e4 -\> Trompowksy and Pseudo-Trompowsky -\> different 1.e4 lines. Sicilian Sveshnikov -\> Nimzowitch Defence. Nimzo Indian-\> Chigorin. The tactical ability should stay and moving openings around should improve your positional understanding.

Studied basic endings - Essential Chess Endings by James Howell.

Played blitz online to keep in shape and regular league and tournament chess.

---
Tags: books, training
---


title: Chess computers in human tournaments

text:
# Question
Title: Chess computers in human tournaments
Do computers play in ordinary human grandmaster chess tournaments with time limits at 40 moves in two hours etc? If so how do they fare?

# Answer
> 1 votes
No, they don't, because it wouldn't be fair. According to Wikipedia:

> A recent top chess engine, Rybka, has an estimated Elo rating of about 3200 (when running on an up-to-date PC, as computed by SSDF).

This is about 500-600 points higher than an average grandmaster (rating 2600-2700). This would be the same rating difference as between a grandmaster and a top club player (2000-2200) - it is a totally different playing category.

According to how the ELO rating is set up, the expected score of a 2600 grandmaster vs. a 3200 computer is 3% - i.e. when they play 100 games, the grandmaster is expected to draw only 6 games. This is way too low to be interesting.

# Answer
> 0 votes
This used to be the case from the sixties, when the first chess computers entered the scene, with the playing strength of a beginner, until the nineties, when computers became too strong for the normal grandmasters.

Then followed a phase of man-machine matches until maybe 10 years ago when results like Hydra-Adams, 5.5-0.5, made it abundantly clear that even the strongest human chess players cannot compete with chess computers.

Nowadays even engines on unspecialised and relatively modest hardware (like a smartphone) are playing beyond human capabilities.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Nowadays, human vs. computer matches or tournaments where a computer participates among human players don't exist because the difference in strength became too big.

In the past, the situation was different and a couple of matches were organized. The match Kasparov - Deep Blue in 1997 is of course the most famous one. On this wikipedia page you can find a nice overview of the human vs. computer matches.

"Mixed tournaments" (humans and computers) were a lot rarer. The only one I can remember is the Dutch championship in 2000, where Fritz participated. It shared the 3rd place with 7/11 and a performance around 2600.

However, it should be added that GM Van der Sterren and IM Bosboom resigned after move 1 and 4 respectively, as a sign of protest against the participation of the machine. So, discarding these games, Fritz scored 5/9, with a performance of 2500+ (my estimation, I didn't check it).

---
Tags: engines, computer-chess, human-versus-machine
---


title: How to solve atomic chess?

text:
# Question
Title: How to solve atomic chess?
Since losing chess is almost solved, I believe that the next step towards solving chess should be atomic chess, which has less forced moves than losing chess but still a lot more than regular chess.

What are the practical steps we should take towards the solution of atomic chess? I seriously want to help solving it in my leisure time as well as learn more about game solving during this process..

# Answer
Solving atomic chess is probably only feasible if it is a white win, like loser chess is.

To try to solve atomic chess I would probably write/acquire a strong atomic engine first.

Then you build a tree starting from the starting position. If it's white to move you chose only one move, if it is black to move you try all possible moves. The engine evalution will guide you in which white move to chose and which black moves should be investigated deepest.

Basically I would try to build a tree that has leaves with a certain minimum positive evaluation. This way you always have a form of very weak solution of atomic chess, i.e. a tree that tells you how to play with white to get an advantage of at least +x.yz.

You'll try to improve x.yz by analysing those parts of the tree where the leaves have the lowest evaluation. If x.yz gets high enough you can try to work positions out until mate (probably you'll need some tablebases at that point).

If you start this kind of project you probably quickly get an impression, whether getting a significant white advantage is generally easy or difficult, which might be a pointer to whether it is ultimately solvable or not.

This is pretty similar to building a repertoire, so I would probably quick start the tree with an existing atomic chess repertoire.

Of course odds are that your tree will never converge towards a strong solution, but in that case at least you've created a really nice atomic repertoire.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: atomic-chess, solving
---


# Question
Title: recommend a book on mid-game plan and board evaluation
Could someone recommend a book on mid-game strategy please?

Things I am especially interested in are

1. Make plans (and foresee opponents plan and stop it)
2. Evaluate current position
3. Evaluate positions at the end of calculation

I guess 2 is somewhat blended in 1 and 3. My problem is that even though I may be able to do some evaluation for the current position, it's very hard to do the same at the end of each variation I calculated. So I'm looking for both a more involved way to analyse current position and also a quick way to roughly evaluate positions down the line. (Or maybe practice is the only way?)

Thanks.

(Not really interested in tactics as this is not my bottleneck)

# Answer
> 2 votes
"***Reassess Your Chess***" by Jeremy Silman is a modern classic on planning and imbalances.

# Answer
> 4 votes
"The Art of The Middle Game" by Keres and Kotov comes to mind. And an older book,"Strategy and Tactics in Chess" by Max Euwe, was long considered a classic in this area. Of course study always has to be combined with practice.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Two interesting books have been published recently that might be helpful to you:

Both concentrate on conveying "chess culture" - the knowledge how to handle certain typical positions and situations. This should be a good way to tackle your point 1.

Precise evaluation only comes with experience, practice and knowledge. Possibly you will have to train calculation instead of tactics.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess Strategy for Club Players, The Road to Positional Advantage by Herman Grooten is worth looking at.

---
Tags: strategy, books, evaluation, planning
---


title: What is Syzygy tablebases?

text:
# Question
Title: What is Syzygy tablebases?
I just want to know in simple language exactly, What the Syzygy tablebases are, Why they are used, What are their advantages, disadvantages?

# Answer
Tablebases are databases of endgame positions, with few pieces left on the board (say a 5-man tablebase, which consists of *all* legal positions with 5 pieces on the board in total, including kings, say K+Q vs. K+R+B). These databases have the positions 'connected', i.e. they also contain the moves to get from one legal position to another (in particular, moves that eventually lead to mate). This allows a chess program, in such positions, to look straight into the tablebase, rather than to calculate via the engine.

Tablebases are perfect, in the sense that it can tell you number of moves to mate, and playing a position against a program using tablebases (in positions with very few pieces left) is akin to "playing with god". So as an advantage, they save computational time and allow your machine to play certain endgame positions perfectly. The disadvantage is that they take up a large amount of memory space.

Owing to the memory issue, compression techniques help to reduce the space taken up by the tablebases. Syzygy tablebases are relatively new (introduced about 2 years ago), compared to the Nalimov tablebases which have been around for quite a while (itself being a compression improvement over previous tablebases). The Nalimov 6-man tablebases take up over 1TB of memory space, whereas the Syzygy bases use less than 200GB.

The different names in front of 'tablebases', e.g. Syzygy and Nalimov, refer to nothing more than compression methods. For all practical purposes, there is absolutely no difference between the content of Syzygy and Nalimov tablebases; a computer that uses either one will play at the same strength (perfect!). Their only difference is the memory space they occupy.

(The possible difference in content, if any, is subtle: first off, every legal position in the tablebase has an evaluation attached to it (draw/win/loss in X moves). However, some positions may contain a sequence of moves to mate that require breaking the 50-move rule; the evaluations of these positions in the tablebases may be changed to accommodate for this, e.g. W/L/D/"win but break 50-move rule", but in any practical game, you are pretty much guaranteed that you will never see this difference.)
> 15 votes

---
Tags: software, database, tablebases
---


# Question
Title: Have endgame tablebases ever been compiled for smaller variants of chess?
I am interested in compiling endgame tablebases for a few miniature chess variants, such as Chess Attack (5x6) and Los Alamos Chess (6x6). Have these ever been created before, and if so, are they publicly accessible?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Please see http://membres-lig.imag.fr/prost/MiniChessResolution/ Perhaps you should ask contact these people since they have solved Gardner and Mallet Chess and are trying to solve Los Alamos Chess which Prost believed to be a draw.

---
Tags: chess-variants, tablebases, computer-chess
---


title: Did Deep Blue play like a human?

text:
# Question
Title: Did Deep Blue play like a human?
Kasparov said, in Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine, that Deep Blue "sank into deep thinking" and took like 15 minutes to make a move.

The movie tells the story of their match, in 1997.

At a certain position, in the second game, Deep Blue could have taken two pawns, but did not, aiming for a win in the long run.

Do modern computers agree with Deep Blue on that, and, if they do, how long does it take them to find the correct winning move?

That part of the movie can be watched here.

# Answer
This article from Chessbase answers most of your questions.

This was the position in which Kasparov had set a "computer chess" trap.

```
 [fen "r1r1q1k1/6p1/p2b1p1p/1p1PpP2/PPp5/2P4P/R1B2QP1/R5K1 w - - 0 35"]
[White "Deep Blue"]
[Black "Gary Kasparov"]

```

He was expecting 36. Qb6 Rd8 37. ab Rab8 38. Qxa6 e4

```
 [fen "1r1rq1k1/6p1/Q2b1p1p/1P1P1P2/1Pp1p3/2P4P/R1B3P1/R5K1 w - - 0 35"]
[White "Deep Blue"]
[Black "Gary Kasparov"]

```

when, for the cost of 2 pawns he has generated dangerous counterplay based on the idea of Qe5 possibly followed by e3.

Instead Deep Blue played the immediate ab followed by Be4 thereby nipping in the bud any chances of counterplay via ... e4 and ... Qe5 for black.

According to the article -

> In fact, if you consult any of the top engines of today, whether it be Houdini 4, Stockfish 6, or Komodo 8, they all choose Deep Blue's move 36.axb5. For example:
>
> Komodo 8: 36.axb5 axb5 37.Be4 Qd8 38.Kh2 Rcb8 39.Ra6 Kf8 40.R6a5 Kg8 41.R1a2 Rxa5 42.Rxa5 Bc7 43.Ra1 Bb6
>
> +/- (0.84) Depth: 29 00:02:15 686MN, tb=57

So, nothing to see here (2 min 15 sec for the computer) ;-) Move on!
> 7 votes

---
Tags: analysis, computer-chess, kasparov, human-versus-machine
---


title: Software for blind chess?

text:
# Question
Title: Software for blind chess?
I recently found a neat feature of Apple's Chess program that allows the player to speak moves, and the computer to speak back moves which makes blind chess very simple and comfortable.

There are a few quirks with the program though. I sometimes stutter when I speak and the Chess program too often interprets what I say as "Undo" with no auditory indication that it undoed. This leads to desyncs between the game the computer's playing and the game in my head.

Is there a program with similar speech-to-move functionality except more refined? I'm okay with the limited commands I can give but I can't deal with my games taking back moves with no indication I can observe. Note: Speaking my moves is very important because I'd like to lie down and relax without keeping my hands on the keyboard to type in moves.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is a website dedicated to playing chess by voice command: https://sites.google.com/site/chesswithvoice/

I didn't check it but apparently it gives instructions on using the Interfaces Arena or Fritz using voice command.

Maybe you'll find some interesting possibilities there.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Nimzo Guernica 2.2.1, an old DOS program published in 1993, had extensions for physically blind people including voice output. But I have no idea if it is operable on today's hardware and I assume it lacked speech recognition. But as you can train keyboard commands to a speech recognition program, you can run every chess program that allows for them with it.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Based on your title your question is not clear with regard to voice command for the blind. But Braille chess has been available for years. There are a number of groups specifically for this. The Braille Chess Association of Ireland

I am sure there are many US based as well.

The chess.com web site has a good article about the history of Blind Chess... history of blind chess playing

I am sure there is further info on their site about software.

---
Tags: software, blindfold-chess
---


# Question
Title: Why was 5...Nf6 traditionally preferred to 5...e6 in the Two Knights Caro-Kann?
Wells (2007) p165 asserts that 5...Nf6 was traditionally preferred over 5...e6 because

```
[FEN "..."]
1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 Bg4 4. h3 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 Nf6 6. d4 dxe4 7. Nxe4 Qxd4 8. Bd3 Nbd7!

```

"is an unsound pawn sacrifice" whereas

```
[FEN "..."]
1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 Bg4 4. h3 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 e6 6. d4 dxe4 7. Nxe4 Qxd4 8. Bd3

```

"is much more dangerous".

He goes on to state that in the latter line 8...Nd7! may overturn the old assessment, but the implication is that 6 d4 is still more dangerous against 5...e6 than against 5...Nf6.

Regardless of the current status of this line, what was the traditional explanation for why 8 Bd3 is more dangerous in the 5...e6 line than the 5...Nf6 line? Wells does not explain this.

Wells, Peter (2007). *Grandmaster Secrets: The Caro-Kann*. Gambit Books.

# Answer
After 5....Nf6 6.d4 dxe4 7.Nxe4 Qxd4 (1), 8.Bd3 seems the only move for white to prove he has enough compensation for the pawn. Now black has two good options: 8....Nbd7 or 8....Nxe4 9.Bxe4 Nd7.

After 5....e6 6.d4 dxe4 7.Nxe4 Qxd4 (2), white has more options. He can play 8.Bd3, but also 8.c3! is a popular option.

In terms of objective evaluation, both variants probably don't differ much, but black should have less problems in (1) compared to (2).

Should black play 5....Nf6 or 5....e6? Difficult to say. According to the Game Database of ChessTempo, the latter is more popular, but, after white's most popular answer 6.d3, both moves often transpose. On the other hand, after 5....e6, black keeps the option to develop with g6, Bg7, Ne7.

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "9"]

      1.e4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 Bg4 4.h3 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 Nf6 (5...e6 6.d4 (6.d3) dxe4 7.Nxe4 Qxd4 8.c3 (8.Bd3)) 6.d4 (6.d3) dxe4 7.Nxe4 Qxd4 8.Bd3 Nxe4 (8...Nbd7) 9.Bxe4 Nd7

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, caro-kann, sacrifice, 1.e4
---


# Question
Title: How deep should I memorize lines of the Sicilian Dragon?
How deep should I memorize lines of the Sicilian Dragon? 1400s USCF The Dragon seems to resonate with me the most, after looking at all the variations. Do I need to get a book on it, or can I get by by just watching YouTube videos, looking at games, and experience?

There's a guy on Youtube, that has like 20-25 minute videos on each of the four main variations of the Sicilian Dragon? Example video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDRoBnL1gRg

Can I get by on just watching his videos, just playing it (and checking where I deviated afterwards), and playing through master games of the opening? First memorize the main variations like 10-15 moves in, and then as I gain experience, learn the sidelines?

# Answer
Your rating is in the 1400s, so you don't need much opening knowledge, although some is helpful. Try memorizing moves to move 7-10 (more if the line is sharp and must be memorized). Make sure you understand the moves and the ideas.
> 2 votes

# Answer
As someone who recently got out of the 1400s, I think it's much more important that you figure out where you want to be developing your pieces and why certain pieces are good in certain places. When I went about memorizing a bunch of moves, I very often (then and now) played people who would do something I'd never read up on.

If instead, you learn some of the reasons and/or general plan for a given opening, I think you'll be better off in the long term.
> 4 votes

# Answer
At the 1400s level, 10-15 moves is already too much. The other 1400s that you play aren't going to play book moves anyway. I glanced at the video you linked to and it looks like too much information (plus I couldn't handle the aspect ratio). If you enjoy watching 90 minutes of opening theory, I don't want to stop you, but I wouldn't expect to retain any of it. The one thing that might be useful is to see common themes (e.g., White's pawn storm, Black's exchange sac on c3), so you know what sort of things to look for, rather than memorizing moves. I see there are some other videos on YouTube on the Dragon that are shorter; I can't speak to their quality, but you might want to check them out first.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Learn Anti Sicilians, c3, Closed, Grand Prix Attack etc and the classical, Levenfish and a little yugoslav dragon. One of the problems facing new players looking at something as complex as the dragon is that not so many people actually play the mainlines vs them as white tends to run away also. The Schiller and Gufeld book Secrets of the Sicilian Dragon is useful as it discusses plans and ideas more than others although I am sure the new Move by Move book due out in a month or 2 will be a gem also. Good luck!
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: Can you improve in chess subconsciously, over time?
Years ago, I was a bullet-chess (1 min. games) addict. I played daily and often. Then I stopped for about 4 years (and played off-and-on). My rating was mediocre - around 1400 on Yahoo Chess.

Recently I started again, 3/0 games and blitz games. I noticed that I play better overall, but I can't pinpoint what it is - I just know I can see combinations better. I wonder about this a lot, because as I age I should be slightly slower mentally (I'm close to 30).

# Answer
First, saying you "feel" like you're better is does not appear to be very scientific, so keep that in mind when attempting to understand the events you're describing.

Also, I don't believe what you're experiencing is related to the subconscious development of your understanding of chess, but you experiencing the difference between cramming knowledge into your brain, and what's called the "Spacing Effect".

(Let me know if this answer addresses your questions, or if there's something I'm missing.)
> 9 votes

# Answer
Over time, I think that you may expect improvement via the following:

1. "Forgetting" bad habits
2. Adding to your experience in non-chess-specific but useful skills, such as reading the opponent, time management, and recognizing your own limitations.
3. More capable or willing than before of purchasing help (lessons).

Specifically to your question, it's worth noting that 1 0 bullet is a far different game compared with 3 0, or 5 0. Also, sites will differ, and the site you mention (Yahoo) has changed over time. As you probably know, the specifics of each site's implementation has a dramatic effect on optimal strategy. For example, does the site allow premove? If so, is there a minimum amount of time which must come off the clock? So leaving 1 0 bullet four years ago and returning to 3 0 today is a far different game.

For the issue of whether you should be faster mentally at 25 or 30, I don't know if the difference would be discernible. But this is not my field of expertise.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Being older doesn't mean inferior. I'm probably a better computer programmer now at 50 than I have ever been. The frenetic power of youth does not always yield a superior result in situations where experience and discipline matter.

Regarding 'subconscious' learning and chess... I don't believe there are any shortcuts.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Supposedly chess improvement comes in plateaus. This is most likely because as you continue to play, you are accumulating chess knowledge. At some point this knowledge will begin to exceed that of your less experienced opponents, and you will reach the next plateau. This is probably akin to what happened to Bobby Fischer when he said that "he just got good" when he was asked as a teenager how he had improved.
> 1 votes

# Answer
You can solve chess problems this way by sleeping on the problem. But I would say you have improved because you play less bullet, which is not good for most aspects of chess generally, and most likely detrimental as it does not help you to generate situations where you must work to find the best move and therefore experientially learn.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


title: Did Carlsen really defeat Kasparov?

text:
# Question
Title: Did Carlsen really defeat Kasparov?
I saw on youtube little Carlsen played against Kasparov, and I see that Kasparov really focused to the game, but finally Carlsen (draw) won the game. How a little kid like that can win against the great Kasparov ?. I almost believe that game has been "arranged", has Carlsen ever won played against kasparov ? (seriously)

# Answer
I think you meant the article: Boy meets Beast in Reykjavik. No, Carlsen didn't win the match - he lost the match by 0.5-1.5. Read the article for the game. It is important to note while Carlsen had a better position, it was not absolutely winning, especially in a rapid game (it was a rapid match).

Carlsen has never beaten Kasparov in the database, in fact, they have never played a standard game. This is not surprising, Carlsen raised in ranks when Kasparov was finishing his career. However, it's almost certain that Carlsen has beaten Kasparov at least in blitz while they were training. We don't have the games so we don't know who was a better blitz player.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: Can anyone analyze my game and mistakes?
I've been learning chess for a while, and I’ve tested my skills in online chess. I make lots of blunders in my games, but people who I ask can't seem to see them, including myself.

Here is a recent game of mine that I wish for analysis on so I may improve my skills.

```
[Event "4444 vs Anonymous"]
[Site "multiplayerchess.com"]
[Date "2015.08.10"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "4444"]
[Black "Anonymous"]

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. d3 Bc5 3. Ne2 d6 4. Nbc3 f5 5. d4 exd4 6. Nxd4 fxe4 7. Bb5+ c6 8. Ba4 Bxd4 9. Qxd4 Nf6 10. Bg5 O-O 11. O-O h6 12. Bb3+ d5 13. Bh4 Be6 14. Qb4 b6 15. Rad1 c5 16. Qb5 Qd7 17. Qxd7 Bxd7 18. Nxd5 Kh8 19. Nxf6 gxf6 20. Rd6 Bc6 21. Bd5 Bxd5 22. Rxd5 f5 23. Rfd1 Nc6 24. Rd7 Nd4 25. Be7 Rfe8 26. Bf6+ Kg8 27. Rg7+ Kf8 28. Rh7 Kg8 29. Rg7+ Kf8 30. c3 1-0

```

Black lost on time, ending the match.

# Answer
```
[Title "Game analysis"]

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. d3 Bc5 3. Ne2 { I prefer Nf3 here, it is more active} d6 4. Nbc3 f5 5. d4 exd4 6. Nxd4 fxe4 7. Bb5+? {Waste of time, Black easily defends while consolidating extra pawn} c6 8. Ba4 Bxd4? {Relinquishing bishop pair, playing twice with the developed piece, improves opponent's development} 9. Qxd4 Nf6 10. Bg5 O-O 11. O-O (11.O-O-O!? $40) 11...h6? (11...d5 $15) 12. Bb3+ d5 13. Bh4 (13.Bxf6!? Qxf6 14.Qxf6 Rxf6 15.Nxe4 Rf8 16.Nd6 $14) 13...Be6 14. Qb4? (14.Nxe4! dxe4 (14...Nxe4?? 15.Bxd8 +-) 15.Bxe6+ $16) 14... b6 15. Rad1?! (15.Nxe4!) 15...c5 16. Qb5 Qd7 17. Qxd7 Bxd7 18. Nxd5 Kh8 19. Nxf6?! (19.Nc7+- ) 19...gxf6 20. Rd6 Bc6 21. Bd5?! (21.Bxf6+) 21...Bxd5 22. Rxd5 f5 23. Rfd1 Nc6 24. Rd7 Nd4 25. Be7 (25.c3) 25...Rfe8 26. Bf6+ Kg8 27. Rg7+ Kf8 28. Rh7 Kg8 29. Rg7+ Kf8 30. c3+- {White has decisive advantage. He will penetrate with the rooks on the 7th rank and eventually mate Black.} 0-1

```

If you do not understand symbols behind moves, go to this link.

Some advices:

* Improve your opening repertoire, what I saw is very risky -\> it might cost you in the future if you continue to open this way;
* Work on tactics, that `Nxe4` blow was obvious;
* Find a book/online tutorial/... on basics of opening play -\> you wasted tempo several times without any good reason to do so;
* Generally speaking, you played well for your level of skill -\> keep improving, you have good prospects in becoming good player.

If you need further help leave a comment. Best regards.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, blunder
---


title: Why was a rating system instituted?

text:
# Question
Title: Why was a rating system instituted?
I personally find there are more negatives than positives in playing rated games and in fact have stopped playing them for that reason. I feel they detract from the enjoyment of the game, making the pursuit of the almighty point its main purpose rather than trying to create something esthetically pleasing at the possible risk of losing. When I played rated games, my sole purpose became to avoid losing and having my rating drop, changing the way I played. Why was it decided to have such a system in the first place? Wasn't playing the game for it's own enjoyment and mental challenge sufficient motivation?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Why do runners take the time when they run a Marathon?

Tournament chess is a sport. It is about competition and improvement. Both is furthered by a way to compare results.

Nobody is forced to play chess competitively, but for those who like to, the rating system is definitely very useful.

# Answer
> 2 votes
A rating system has many advantages:

* Ensure that you play against opponents of similar ability, especially in tournaments and/or leagues. Most people enjoy a challenge most when it is hard but not impossible.
* When you do happen to play against someone of far stronger ability, most rating systems make provision by not penalising you too much when you lose (and similarly not benefiting you too much when you beat a much weaker opponent). I find this encourages me to enter tournaments in a higher category when I'm up for a challenge, because I know that mediocre results won't necessarily destroy my rating.
* Provides an objective measure of improvement. I find it interesting to see how my rating changes over time, and obviously I feel very satisfied if it increases after hard work.

As for negatives, I can't think of many:

* no rating system is perfect, and there is always a bit of dispute about how much they reflect actual playing ability. This is not really a problem as most players know that their rating is really just an approximation rather than the absolute indisputable measure of their strength.
* I know some players "manage" their rating, often losing games to prevent it from going too high, so that they can play in lower-graded sections of tournaments. I don't care much for these people, and fortunately there are not many of them. As an interesting note here, the opposite also happens - strong players sometimes refuse to play in tournaments if there are not many players of similar strength. For example, Nakamura stopped playing in the US Championship for a number of years because he believed playing against weaker opponents would have a detrimental affect on his rating (he wants to stay in the 2800 club you see). Luckily for us chess fans he seems to have gotten over this particular affliction because he played this year and won.

Try not to take ratings *too* seriously - it serves its purpose well enough.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The rating system is a means of ranking players. The question you are asking therefore is really about the motivation behind ranking players; apart from the usual reasons (which country has the best players, who is the best player, etc.), national federations need some criteria to decide which players to send to international tournaments (say the olympiad).

While it is possible to select players that win the national championship (and this is common practice for many countries), it is unfair to have an entire national team composed of players selected from a single tournament (where attendance may not have been possible for some who have been performing well throughout the year, and when there is a large pool of players and not enough rounds, the rankings of runners-up are not very convincing); a ranking system is needed as another decision criteria, at least for the playoffs.

Rankings are an integral part of any competitive game or sport; the big question now is how effective the current rating system is, in the sense of how it reflects on players strength.

As for playing in tournaments, if whether a game is rated or not affects your approach to the current game, resulting in you trying harder "not to lose", perhaps it shows that indeed rating systems encourage you to play better.

---
Tags: rating
---


# Question
Title: What do D and +-- mean in chess annotation?
When using Stockfish to annotate some of my games, I will often get the symbols D and +--, which I can't find definitions for. I think that +- means “decisive advantage” for White, and that +-- might mean “very decisive.” As for D next to a move I am at a loss.

# Answer
> 4 votes
"D" means see diagram. "+/-" means white is better, but not much better.

---
Tags: notation, annotation
---


# Question
Title: What is the best line in the Fried Liver
The following is suggested by my computer (Stockfish) as an improvement to a line in the Fried Liver played in Shirov v Sulskis 2014 and suggested as a definite refutation in some places - Shirov's key move was 9. a3.

As an improvement, instead of the Sulskis move 11... Kd6, play 11... Qh4 as follows, with suggested follow-up (I have tested at some depth, but the positions are not straightforward and there are alternative moves).

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. Ng5 d5
5. exd5 Nxd5
6. Nxf7 Kxf7
7. Qf3+ Ke6
8. Nc3  Ncb4
9. a3   Nc2+
10. Kd1  Nxa1
11. Nxd5 Qh4
12. d3  Kd6
13. h3  Be6
14. Ne3  e4
15. Nf5+ Kc6
16. Nxh4 exf3
17. Bxe6 fxg2
18. Nxg2

```

With advantage to black. 11... Qh4 is an extraordinary move so I'd appreciate any commentary on that. Is it really advantage black? Can anyone find an improvement in this line (from move 11) for white?

My computer (at significant depth) would play 9 Bb3 as an improvement for white, instead of Shirov's move (I'm taking the position after move 8 as basic) - but this secures only a modest advantage for white and it looks as though the position can be defended. Is there any deep published analysis of these lines?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Recently, GM L'Ami made a DVD covering the Two Knights and the Fried Liver attack. According to the article, he suggests ideas for both white and black, so maybe he discusses 9.Bb3 (instead of 9.a3) and 11....Qh4 (instead of 11....Kd6).

Furthermore I'd like to add that, although it has been played by a couple of grandmasters, 5....Nxd5 is considered to be very risky for black.

The main line of the variation is 5....Na5. According to the Game Database of ChessTempo, it is by far the most popular response to 4.Ng5. After 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6, black is a pawn down, but is ahead in development. This position is one of the tabiyas of 1.e4 e5: has black sufficient compensation for the pawn or not?

# Answer
> 2 votes
This does not actually answer your question, but if you are asking about this from the perspective of the white player, you are probably better off playing the modern move 6.d4 and studying the lines that follow from that. The reason for this is that most black players don't play 5...Nxd5, so it would not be very good use of your time to look into a line like this. GMs play like this because they prepared beforehand, and such lines are not an actual part of their main repertoire.

Anyway, to attempt to answer your question: 9.Bb3 was the old main move and is a well-known line; in fact, it would be the first line anyone would learn about if they somehow decide to incorporate 5...Nxd5 into their opening repertoire as black. After 11... Qh4, if GM analysis tells you that the position is advantageous for black, you should probably believe it. In the final position, white's pawn structure is shattered; the d- and f-pawns are on open files which makes them easy targets for the black rooks. More importantly, white's pieces are poorly coordinated, and he needs to spend time to pick up the knight on a1.

In the line you have, most of white's moves are almost forced (in today's age, you can simply check this with your engine) after 11... Qh4. Nevertheless, it is indeed an incredible move that your opponent is unlikely to find over the board, which makes this line a good surprise weapon for an unprepared opponent.

As for improvements, you are not likely to find them published until an actual game has been played in that line, especially if the move is something that the computer has evaluated wrongly (but this is very unlikely to happen in sharp positions like this one).

(The last time I checked, which was about 5 years ago, the evaluation of the immediate Fried Liver with 6.Nxf7 is *not* favourable for white; however, the position after 6.d4 exd4 7.O-O is indeed better for white. The evaluation may have changed recently, but it's quite unlikely, again because this is an open position, and most genuine improvements were probably found by computers already.)

# Answer
> 0 votes
Instead of d5 try Bc5 variation. There are lots of videos on this. This would be good attacking for Black. If your opponent does not know how to defend correctly, he might lose his major pieces or mated after few moves.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, fried-liver-attack
---


title: Patt undecided?

text:
# Question
Title: Patt undecided?
I am very new to chess, and I fear that this question is very stupid.

I played this game in "easy" mode, and I destroyed a lot of pieces of the counter party.

Now, I wanted to destroy their king. But the game says "Patt - undecided". What does "undecided" mean?

Every move which his king will do, will make him lose the game. But why didn't I win then?

# Answer
It means the position is stalemate. By chess rules if one side is to move and is unable to move and is not in check then the game ends in a draw. That is what happened here to you.
> 5 votes

# Answer
These are the very basic rules of chess. You should check a chess manual to be sure you know them. A direct attack on the king is a check. If you cannot get out of check somehow - by capture of the attacking piece, interposition or flight, then your king is checkmated and the game is over. If it is your turn to move and you cannot legally move the king or anything else without going into check, then the game is a draw by stalemate, one of the numerous ways a game can be drawn, The manual will explain all of these as well (triple repetition of position, perpetual check, insufficient mating material, exceeding the 50 move rule when no piece has been captured or pawn moved for 50 moves, and draw by agreement).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, stalemate
---


title: My game against AI, please analyze

text:
# Question
Title: My game against AI, please analyze
```
[Event "4444 vs AI"]
[Site "multiplayerchess.com"]
[Date "2015.08.12"]
[Round "1"]
[White "4444"]
[Black "AI"]
[Result "1-0"]

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. d3 d5 3. Ne2 g5 4. Nbc3 d4 5. Nb5 c6 6. Na3 Bxa3 7. bxa3 b5 8. Rb1 Be6 9. Rb4 Bxa2 10. f4 gxf4 11. Nxf4 exf4 12. Bxf4 a5 13. Rb2 Qh4+ 14. g3 Qe7 15. Rxa2 Nd7 16. Bh3 Nc5 17. Qg4 Nf6 18. Qg7 Rg8 19. Qh6 Rd8 20. O-O Ne6 21. e5 Rg6 22. exf6 Rxh6 23. fxe7 Rxh3 24. exd8=Q+ Kxd8 25. Kh1 f5 26. Bb8 Kc8 27. Ba7 Kb7 28. Bxd4 Nxd4 29. c3 Ne6 30. Rxf5 h5 31. Rf7+ Kc8 32. Rg2 c5 33. Rgf2 c4 34. Rf8+ Nxf8 35. Rxf8+ Kc7 36. Rf7+ Kb8 37. dxc4 bxc4 38. Rf4 a4 39. Rxc4 Kb7 40. Rb4+ Kc6 41. Rxa4 Kb7 42. Rb4+ Kc6 43. a4 Kc7 44. a5 Kc6 45. a6 Kc5 46. a7 Rxh2+ 47. Kxh2 h4 48. gxh4 Kd6 49. h5 Kc5 50. h6 Kd6 51. h7 Kc5 52. h8=Q Kd6 53. Qf6+ Kd7 54. Rd4+ Kc7 55. Qd6+ Kb7 56. a8=Q+ Kxa8 57. Rb4 Ka7 58. Qb6+ Ka8 59. Ra4#

```

Against AI of multiplayerchess.com

I had fun with this one, I never knew AI will make blunders :3 Also, if you can analyze my game for me will be appreciated.

# Answer
2...d5 risky but playable,

3.Ne2 not that good either Nf3 o exd5

3...g5? positionally bad, better dxe4 and later QxQ taking away castle to white or better develop a piece

4.Nc3 provocative but later N is uncomfortable in b5 and ends badly in a3

6...Bxa3 fine now white has some holes too in the pawn structure

7...b5? again positionally unsound **it appears black does not know how to develop pieces**

8.Rb1 what for? better Ng3 and later Be2 to complete development and control the white squares that are weak for black

10.f4?? till 12.Bxf4 why? this is not correct, simply loses material white is close to lost: as above you had to develop with Ng3, Be2 and 0-0

13...Qe4 a useless check that forgets the B in a2 under attack and returns the material advantage

till 21.e5 relatively normal play (no huge blunders) but 21...Rg6?? loses material in 3 moves sequence (white takes Q R and N vs Q and B) 21...Nd5 was better: after 24...Kxd8 white is totally winning

26.Bb8 till 28.Bxd4 this again was a useless material sacrifice why go in b8 in the firs place? You had to rearrange pieces bringing the rook from a2 to e1 and start attacking: white is still winning but it is harder

30... h5?? is a huge blunder and black is again totally lost now: the rook is trapped and can be captured with Kg2, a move you never played

32.Rg2?? white had to play Kg2 attacking the Rh3 now black could free it with 32...h4, but this remains valid for just a move

from now on white wins by taking all the black pawns which was fine still the rook hanging in h3 was to be taken with Kg2 attacking it-

as suggested you should learn the basics of material counting
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, engines, online-chess
---


# Question
Title: Which variation of the Grunfeld Defense for White will lead to the most strategic and least sharp position?
```
[fen ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5

```

After 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5, which variation of the Grunfeld Defense leads to the most solid and strategic position? If possible, I prefer a variation with possibilities for a minority attack. The Exchange Variation (4. cxd5) is too sharp and contains too much theory. If possible, there should not be loads of theory.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Maybe 4.e3 is an interesting idea against the Grünfeld. Usually, black answers with 4....Bg7, but it should be noted that black can transpose to the Slav defence with 4....c6.

After 4....Bg7, white has two interesting options: 5.Qb3 and 5.cxd5.

* 5.Qb3 is probably the most popular continuation, attacking the pawn on d5. If black plays 5....dxc4, then white should be slightly better after 6.Bxc4. After 5....c6, a Slav defence-like position arises, which black players probably want to avoid. Therefore, 5....e6 is the most common response. Then, white can (temporarily) stop black from castling with the interesting move 6.Qa3!?, which has been played by several strong grandmaster like Nakamura (against Caruana), Ivanchuk and Dreev. After 6....Qe7?!, white obtains a clear advantage after 7.Qxe7+ Kxe7 8.b3.
* The idea behind 5.cxd5 is to answer 5....Nxd5 6.Nxd5 Qxd5 with 7.Ne2 and 8.Nc3. This line has been played by several grandmasters, including Kramnik (in a rapid game against Svidler) and Andreikin.

Although my suggestion has some ideas and has been played by many grandmasters, it is far from the most principled continuation against the Grünfeld. Nevertheless, I believe it has some venom and could be a good try to surprise your opponents.

```
  [StartPly "7"]

  [FEN ""]
  1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.e3 Bg7 (4...c6) 5.Qb3 (5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Nxd5 Qxd5 7.Ne2) e6 (5...dxc4 6.Bxc4) (5...c6) 6.Qa3 Qe7 7.Qxe7+ Kxe7 8.b3

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
Bg5 on move 4 is a strategic move, prioritising a minority attack in some lines. The line 6.cxd5 with this plan is covered in Richard Palliser's Play 1.d4! Also 6.Bf4 is possible, see the game below played between Shogi legend Yoshiharu Habu and super GM Maxime Vachier-Lagrave (Annotations by Maxime Vachier-Lagrave).

```
  [StartPly "7"]
  [FEN ""]

  1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bg5 Bg7 5. Nf3 Ne4
    6. Bf4 {A very rare but very solid variation.} c6 7. e3 O-O 8. Qb3             Qa5 9. cxd5
    $1 Nxc3 10. bxc3 $1 (10. Qxc3 Qxc3+ 11. bxc3 cxd5 12. c4 dxc4 13.       Bxc4 Bf5 $11)
    10... cxd5 11. Bd3 { This position is somewhat unpleasant for       Black.} b6 (11...
    Nd7 12. O-O Nb6 { was interesting but seemed dangerous to me.} 13.       Rfc1 (13.
    Bc7 Bg4 14. Rab1 $6 Rfc8 15. Bxb6 axb6 16. Rfc1 Rc7 $15) 13... Bd7       14. h4 $5
    {with a certain initiative but the position remains about equal.})       12. O-O Ba6
    13. Bxa6 (13. c4 $5 dxc4 (13... Nd7 $5 14. cxd5 Bxd3 15. Qxd3 Qxd5       16. Rfc1
    Rfc8 17. Qa6 Rxc1+ 18. Rxc1 e5 19. Rc8+ $5 Rxc8 20. Qxc8+ Bf8 21.       Nxe5 Nxe5
    22. Bxe5 Qxa2 $13) 14. Bxc4 Bxc4 15. Qxc4 Nd7 16. Rac1 e5 $11)       13... Nxa6 14.
    Rac1 Rac8 15. c4 dxc4 16. Rxc4 b5 (16... Rxc4 $5 17. Qxc4 b5 18.       Qb3 Rc8 {transposes.})
    17. Rxc8 Rxc8 18. h3 $6 {not enough dynamic here.} (18. Qd5 $5 Nb4       $1 19. Qd7
    (19. Qb7 Qa6 $1 20. Qxe7 Nd5 21. Qd7 Nf6 $13) 19... Rd8 20. Bc7 $5             (20. Qxe7
    Nd5 21. Qc5 Nxf4 22. exf4 Qxa2 23. Qxb5 $11) 20... Rxd7 21. Bxa5       {and this ending
    is unpleasant, due to the pawn on b5 instead of b7 for example.}       Nc6 22. Bd2
    f5 23. Rc1 Rd6 24. Be1 $1 $146 {prophylactique} e5 $6 25. dxe5       Nxe5 26. Rc8+
    Kf7 27. Ng5+ Ke7 28. Rc7+ Rd7 29. Bb4+ $16) 18... e6 (18... b4 $5 19. Ne5 Bxe5 {again, this move works thanks to the not very dangerous white attack. It is more important to prevent the knight from sitting on the c4 square.} (19...e6 20. Nc4 Qd5 21. Rc1 $14) 20. Bxe5 Rc3 21. Qb1 f6 22. Bg3 Qd5 $13) 19. Qb1 (19. Rb1 b4 20. e4 $5 {this idea was interesting to take advantage of the out of play Na6.}) 19... Qb4 (19... Bf8 $1 20. Rc1 Qb4 {During the game, I realized that this line was stronger, first inviting the opponent's rook to come on the c column.}) 20. Qe4 Qe7 21. Ne5 $6 (21. a3 $1 {Habu was very impressed by this idea, saying with his usual modesty and humour that he doubted he would have found it even with an additional one hour to his clock.} b4 22. Qd3 $14) 21...Nb4 22. Qb1 a6 { now, it is obvious that Black is aiming to win: all black pieces are well grouped together and the queen side majority will work when the major pieces will be exchanged.} 23. e4 $5 (23. Rc1 Rxc1+ 24. Qxc1 Qb7 $15 25. e4 $2 Nxa2 26. Qd2 Qxe4 $17) 23... Bxe5 $1 {this move is really the strongest but here white is mistaken.} 24. Bxe5 $6 {the bishop is in fact misplaced here. White should play} (24. dxe5 $1 Rc4 $1 {a difficult idea to play because it seems that we let some counterplay against our king and apparently, Black's pieces are perfectly placed to prevent it.} (24... Rd8 25. Rd1 $1 Rxd1+ 26.Qxd1 Nc6 $13) 25. Rd1 Qh4 26. g3 Qh5 $15 27. Kg2 (27. Rd8+ Kg7 28. Qb2 Nc6 29.Rd6 Rxe4 $1 30. Rxc6 $6 Qd1+ 31. Kg2 (31. Kh2 Re2 32. Rc1 Qd3 $1 $19) 31...Rxf4 $1 32. gxf4 Qd5+ $19) 27... g5 28. Be3 Nc2 $15) 24... Rc4 25. Rc1 Nc6 26.Rxc4 $2 (26. Bg3 $1 {This was the last chance but was far from obvious.} Nxd4 (26... Qb4 $5 27. d5 Qxb1 28. Rxb1 Nd4 $15) 27. Rxc4 bxc4 28. Qb8+ Qf8 29. Qc7 Ne2+ 30. Kh2 Nxg3 31. fxg3 {gives good practical chances, a priori I would have given back the pawn here.} a5 $1 (31... Qb4 32. Qd8+ Kg7 33. Qd4+ Kh6 34. h4 $44) 32. Qxc4 Qb8 $15) 26... bxc4 $17 27. Qb6 (27. Bg3 Qb4 $1 $17) 27... Nxe5 28. Qb8+ Qf8 29. Qxe5 Qc8 $19 {the c-pawn is running too fast now, the game is over.} 30. d5 (30. Qc5 Qxc5 31. dxc5 c3 $19) (30. Qf4 c3 31. Qc1 Qc4 $19) 30... c3 31. Qf4 c2 32. Qc1 Qc3 33. d6 Qd3 34. d7 Qd1+ 35. Kh2 Qxc1 36. d8=Q+ Kg7 37. Qd4+ Kh6 38. Qf6 (38. Qd6 g5 $1 $19) 38... Qd2 39. Qxf7 Qd6+ 40. e5 Qxe5+ 41. f4 Qc5 0-1

```

The game below shows the minority attack (Seirawan - Smejkal 1998)

```
  [StartPly "7"]
  [FEN ""]

  1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bg5 Ne4 6.cxd5 Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6 8.Nf3 exd5 9.b4 O-O 10.e3 c6 11.Bd3 Bg4 12.O-O Nd7 13.h3 Bxf3 14.Qxf3 a5 15.a3 axb4 16.axb4 Qe7 17.Rab1 Ra3 18.Rfc1 b5 19.Bxb5 cxb5 20.Nxb5 Ra4 21.Nc3 Raa8 22.Nxd5 Qd8 23.b5 Rb8 24.Rc6 Nb6 25.Nc7 Qe7 26.Na6 Rb7 27.Rbc1 Rd8 28.Rc7 Rxc7 29.Rxc7 Rd7 30.Qc6 Rxc7 31.Nxc7 Qf6 32.Kf1 Qxc6 33.bxc6 Kf8 34.Nb5 f5 35.f3 Ke7 36.Ke2 Nc8 37.Kd3 Nd6 38.Nc3 Kd8 39.Nd5 Nb5 40.g4 Nc7 41.Nf4 fxg4 42.fxg4 Ke7 43.e4 Kd6 44.d5 Be5 45.Ne2 Nxd5 46.exd5 Kxd5 47.h4 Kxc6 48.Ke4 Bf6 49.g5 Bd8 50.Ke5 Kd7 51.Nd4 Bc7+ 52.Kf6 Bg3 53.Nf3 Ke8 54.Kg7 Ke7 55.Kxh7 Kf7 56.h5 1-0

```

---
Tags: opening, strategy, 1.d4, grunfeld-defense
---


title: Which are better of these two pairs

text:
# Question
Title: Which are better of these two pairs
Which give me more advantage two Knights or two Bishops ?. And what should I choose two Rooks or a Queen ?

# Answer
*On average*, two bishops are better than two knights, but there are plenty of exceptions (e.g., a closed position where the bishops don't have room to operate).

*On average*, two rooks are better than a queen, but there are plenty of exceptions (e.g., when the player with the rooks has a bunch of weak pawns that are easy for the queen to attack).
> 3 votes

# Answer
Read the article "Evaluation of Material Imbalances" by GM Larry Kaufman: The Evaluation of Material Imbalances.

He says about the bishop pair:

> The bishop pair has an average value of half a pawn (more when the opponent has no minor pieces to exchange for one of the bishops), enough to regard it as part of the material evaluation of the position, and enough to overwhelm most positional considerations. Moreover, this substantial bishop pair value holds up in all situations tested, regardless of what else is on the board. This large a bishop pair value is surprising because in the opening grandmasters will often give up the bishop pair to double the opponent's pawns or to gain a mild lead in development, factors which are generally not worth half a pawn \[DH: Since at the very start of the game a tempo is worth roughly a third of a pawn - and more later! - it is worth losing a tempo to save the bishop pair, but if you can gain two tempo by giving up the bishop pair that may be worth it in the short run!\]

Later, queen vs. two rooks:

> Although many authors talk about queen and pawn equaling two rooks, this is only close to true with no minor pieces on the board; with two or more minors each, the queen needs no pawns to equal the rooks. I recall a famous Portisch-Fischer game in which Portisch "won" two rooks for Fischer's queen right out of the opening, but Fischer soon won a weak pawn and went on to win rather easily, despite the nominal point equality. In fact Fischer's annotations severely criticized Portisch for making the trade; Fischer understood very well that with lots of material on the board, the queen is every bit as good as the rooks, so once he won a pawn he was effectively a full pawn ahead.

His basic tables of values is:

* Pawn = 1
* Bishop pair = +½
* Rook = 5
* Bishop = 3¼
* Knight = 3¼
* Queen = 9¾
> 5 votes

---
Tags: strategy, material-balance
---


# Question
Title: What are the latest ideas for Black against the Samisch King's Indian Defense?
I am always afraid of the Samisch variation of the King's Indian. It's the main reason why I switched to Chebanenko Slav (or ..a6 Slav, or Kamsky's Slav). But my opponents seem to be always prepared against the Slav. So after few months of unsuccessful Slav, I am going back to King's Indian Defense.

```
[fen ""]
[StartFlipped "1"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6. Be3 Nc6 7.Qd2 e5 8. d5 Ne7 9. Bd3 Nh5 10. O-O-O f5 11. exf5 gxf5

```

After `gxf5`, Black's position is scary.

Thanks!

# Answer
> 7 votes
According to the Game Database of ChessTempo, after 6.Be3, there are 3 main variations:

1. 6....e5: 1970 games
2. 6....Nc6: 1651 games
3. 6....c5: 1335 games

After 6....e5 white's main moves are 7.d5 and 7.Nge2. After 7.d5 black has two options: 7....c6 (counterplay on the queen side) or 7....Nh5 8.Qd2 f5 (counterplay on the king side). After 7.Nge2 black's most common move is 7....c6.

After 6....Nc6 the most popular move is 7.Nge2. After 7.Qd2 black often plays 7....a6 (the very best move in my opinion), and black seems to have excellent results after 8.0-0-0 (simply too dangerous in my opinion) with 8....b5 or 8....Rb8. The main line 8.Nge2 Rb8 actually transposes to 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8, leading to a complicated position, where black has 2 plans: b5 or e5.

After 6....c5 black should be ready to play

* the pawn sacrifice after 7.dxc5. The statistics in the database suggest that black has enough compensation for the pawn.
* the Benoni positions that arise after 7.d5 or 7.Nge2 Nc6 8.d5.

In order to make a choice between these 3 options, you can search some games of strong players to see which type of positions suits your playing style the most.

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "11"]

      1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 Nc6 (6...c5 (7.dxc5)(7.d5) 7.Nge2 Nc6 8.d5) (6...e5 7.d5 (7.Nge2 c6) 7...Nh5 (7...c6) 8.Qd2 f5) 7.Qd2 (7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8) 7...a6 8.O-O-O (8.Nge2 Rb8) 8...b5 (8...Rb8)

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
I agree with magd that 6.Be3 c5 is a hot line right now. And if you are scared to sacrifice a pawn, maybe the king's indian is not for you. And of course: The king's indian is a very complex opening. There are no easy solutions. Only working through books and GM-games will equip you with the ability to play these positions well and with confidence.

That being said, maybe you should investigate the possibility of playing Nd4 after 8.d5. This seems to score better and set more problems then retreating. Taking that knight immediately is definitely very bad for white and you may be able to follow up with c5.

```
[fen ""]
[StartFlipped "1"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6. Be3 Nc6 7.Qd2 e5 8. d5 Nd4 9. Bxd4 exd4 10. Qxd4 Nxe4

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
6...a6 turning it into a sort of Benko Gambit like structure. Look up Superchessguru on youtube.

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


# Question
Title: Why can I not make an en passant capture?
Here is part of a Lichess game where I tried make to make an en passant capture-but it's impossible. **The question is this-Why?** I am new to chess. I searched for the chess of rules on Wikipedia, but there was nothing specific about this case.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 a6 2.d4 d6 3.Nf3 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Be3 Na5 7.O-O h6 8.Re1 Bf6 9.Qe2
b5 10.Rad1 b4 11.Nd5 Nc6 12.e5 Bxe5 13.dxe5 Bb7 14.e6 f5 *

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
From Wikipedia (is this what you read?)

> When a pawn advances two squares from its starting position **and there is an opponent's pawn on an adjacent file next to its destination square**, then the opponent's pawn can capture it en passant (in passing), and move to the square the pawn passed over. However, this can only be done on the very next move, otherwise the right to do so is forfeit. For example, if the black pawn has just advanced two squares from g7 (initial starting position) to g5, then the white pawn on f5 may take it via en passant on g6 (but only on white's next move).

The opponent moved 14...f7-f5. There is no White pawn on e5 or g5.

# Answer
> 5 votes
If your e pawn was still on e5 then ef en passant would be a legal move but you cannot take en passant from e6.

The idea behind the en passant move is that originally pawns could only move one square at a time even on the first move. Then, with the white pawn on e5 black would have to first move f6 when white could capture the pawn normally. Then, in order to speed up the game, the rules were changed to allow a pawn to move 2 squares on the first move. The trouble with this was that it was unfair on the e5 pawn in the situation where black moves f7-f5. White has lost the chance to take e5xf6 because the f pawn has gone straight to f5. To fix this unfairness the en passant (in passing) rule was introduced to allow white to take the f pawn as if it had only moved one square. Because black could have moved f6-f5 next move this en passant possibility only lasts for one move.

As you can see, with your pawn already on e6 if black had played f7-f6 you would not be able to take. Therefore you also cannot take with your pawn already on e6 if he plays f7-f5.

---
Tags: rules, en-passant, captures
---