title: A special "dead" position

text:
# Question
Title: A special "dead" position
Construct a position which forcibly leads to White *or* Black being stalemated (and both events are actually possible), meaning that the position is already dead. Further (or it would be *too easy*) all possible lines (which you thus of course can't actually play in a game!) contain a check of White as well as of Black.

# Answer
I am not sure if this is exactly what you are asking for, but here is a try.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/2p1p1p1/2P1PkP1/4Q1RB/3PPpPp/3n1Kbr b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... Nxe3+ 2.dxe3+ {2.Rxe3} Kxe4 {2...Kxg3} 3.Rf3

```

Black to move has only one legal move: 1...Nxe3 check.

Now:

* 2.Rxe3 immediately stalemates Black.
* 2.dxe3 Kxe4 3.Rf3 stalemates Black after checking Black.
* 2.dxe3 Kxg3 stalemates White after checking Black.
> 11 votes

# Answer
Since Evergalo asked, I also post a solution, where neither side is in check at the start. Problem chess etiquette says that everything that the composer does not rule out explicitly isn't cheating - for example, I used a promoted bishop, since bPh7 makes the pawn structure illegal - but ingenuity. Thus I immediately accepted the answer, especially as the "forking" into both sides' stalemate isn't as trivial as mine.

```
[FEN "6b1/p4p1b/4pPkr/4P2p/4Pp1P/4pR2/P3PpP1/5K1n b KQkq - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... Ng3+ 2.Rxg3+ fxg3 etc.

```

EDIT: This is still no solution *with neither side in check*, since after 1...a5 the position is alive. My best try is

```
[FEN "Bk6/1P5p/1P6/8/7p/4p2P/4PpP1/5KBn w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

dead after 1.Bh2+. (*Two* checks still follow after that in the "proof" variants, but the position is dead only after the initial check. Kudos to the first giving a "quiet" initial position!)

EDIT1: Very illegal, but working. Bg5+ and Bxb4+ are "neutral" and can be played anywhen. I did not manage a legal position with two prepended bishop checks.

```
[FEN "BRRK1k2/1PPP1Pp1/6Pb/pp1p3p/bn3p1P/Bp3P1P/1P1P4/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

EDIT2: A clever way (1...Ng3+) to fork into White (2.hxg3) and Black (2.Bxg3) stalemate, but the black king stands so stupid that I couldn't prepend a check. (And otherwise I need tons of pawns again.)

```
[FEN "8/8/6p1/6P1/3p2pB/3P1kPp/3P1p1P/5K1n w KQkq - 0 1"]

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
Example showing why the checking condition is needed to make this an interesting puzzle:

```
[FEN "k7/Pp4p1/1P6/8/8/6p1/1P4Pp/7K w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

Whoever moves, the game soon ends in stalemate, and either side may be stalemated thanks to the double-move option.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I think I have found a position meeting all the requirements, where White, on move, is not in check. Moreover, White can play a non-checking move.

Legal position, 13 units, no promoted pieces.

White: Kh5, Rh6, Pe6,f5,g4,g6 / Black: Kg8, Rh8, Bf8, Pe7,f6,g7,g5

Black's last move was ...Rh7-h8 (possibly capturing a knight) or ...f7-f6. Before that, White might have played a pawn.

Possible lines are:

* A. 1.Rxh8+ Kxh8 stalemate,
* B. 1.Rh7 Rxh7+ 2.gh7+ (both kings have been checked) 2...Kh8 3.Kg6 stalemating Black
* C. 1.Rh7 Rxh7+ 2.gh7+ (both kings have been checked) 2...Kxh7 stalemating White.

If it bothers you that Black doesn't check White in line A, then the solution to your construction problem is the position after 1.Rh7, Black to move: no side is in check right now but both kings will be checked before either one is stalemated. But aesthetically I prefer the longer version !

Another version : wRh6 -\> wPh6 ; 1.h7+ is the only legal move and play will then follow lines B and C.
> 2 votes

# Answer
For Hauke, here is a "quiet" position as was challenged. :)

```
[FEN "5kBK/5P1P/5P2/4nP2/5p1N/5Pp1/6P1/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ng6+ Nxg6+ 2. fxg6

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: problems, stalemate, forced-move, dead-position
---


title: Is it possible for black to win this?

text:
# Question
Title: Is it possible for black to win this?
```
[FEN "5bbk/5p1p/3b1P1P/6PK/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

How does Black get out and is it possible for Black to win? And if so, what is the least amount of moves it takes Black to win?

It is Black to move

# Answer
> What is the least number of moves for Black to win?

It probably means you want an answer from the engine. I ran Stockfish 14+ at depth 61. Here's the line in which Stockfish recommended finishing the game ASAP(btw, it was checkmate in 17. Could have been 16 but I don't want to run it till depth 99).

```
[FEN "5bbk/5p1p/3b1P1P/6PK/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Bb8 2. Kh4 Bb4 3. Kg4 Bd2 4. Kf5 Bbf4 5. Kg4 Bxg5 6. Kg3 Bxh6 7. Kg2 Bhf4 8. Kh3 h6 9. Kg2 Bh7 10. Kh3 Bf5+ 11. Kg2 Be4+ 12. Kf1 h5 13. Kf2 h4 14. Ke2 h3 15. Kd1 h2 16. Ke2 h1=Q 17. Kf2 Qe1#

```

But if you wanted an answer from a human then let me give my thoughts.

I personally would have played Bb4-Bd2 and then bring out the other dark square bishop to Ba3-Bc1. Try to win the pawn on g5 and h6. Then maybe go for an f6 pawn. After that, it's easy to convert by queening one of the pawns.

> How does Black get out?

By bringing out their both dark-squared bishops on h6-c1 diagonal and winning white's pawns.
> 1 votes

# Answer
This is an easy win (that it's a mate in 16 I almost can't believe - best Stockfish now has is #21, but it's still running). Black simply gangs up the two black-square bishops against g5 (B-a3-c1, B-b4-d2 or so) and busts the king's prison. After that it's just the usual BB mate (or queening a pawn). BTW, the position is impossible to reach in play since the Bg8 couldn't get behind the pawns.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: problems
---


# Question
Title: How do I evaluate the value of every piece in Mathematical Chess?
This is Vietnamese Mathematical Chess—
*http://cotoan.vnvista.com/rules-en.html*
The board contains 11 ranks and 9 files. Each side has ten pieces, numbered from 0 to 9. The board initial layout is as displayed in the picture below—
**Movements**: Each piece (with the exception of 0 piece) can move in any direction (vertically, horizontally, or diagonally − forward or backward), the max number of squares a piece can move depends on the number of the piece.
For example, the piece with number 2 can move 1 or 2 empty squares, while the piece with number 9 can move from 1 to 9 empty squares—
**Capture**: To capture the opponent's piece, a player must have two pieces one next to another. Then use the numbers of the two pieces to make calculations. Allowed calculations are + (addition), - (subtraction), × (multiplication), ÷ (division), and modulus (division reminder).

Any results of the calculations can be used to apply to the capture. If a result contains two numbers, then remove the tens number (for example 8×7=56=\>use 6). Use a suitable result to make the capture by taking the piece behind to capture the opponent's piece.

For example, one player have an 8 piece and 5 piece next to each other vertically. Calculation results from these 2 pieces are:
8+5=13 (take 3)
8-5=3
8×5=40 (take 0 - which is useless anyway)
8÷5=1 with 3 as remainder (take both 1 and 3)
The player can then use the 8 piece (the piece behind) to capture an opponent piece which is 1 or 3 squares away from the 5 piece (the piece in front), in the same the direction that 8-\>5 is.

The image below shows how the 1 piece and 2 piece standing next to each other can capture the opponent's pieces. If an opponent's piece is on one of those **X** squares, the player can capture it. The calculations that the capture is based on are: 1+2=3, 1×2=2, 1÷2=0 with 1 as remainder—

The 0 piece (the one with zero number) is like the King in Chess. When it is captured, the player loses the game.

Besides capturing the 0 piece, players can agree at a certain point to end a match (if the 0 piece is not captured before that point is reached). The point that one player gains is calculated by summing the numbers of the opponent's pieces that have been captured.

For example, if the players agree to set the match's ending point to 10. Then when a player captures the 5 and 6 piece, he wins the game (5+6=11 which is greater than 10). Or if a player captures the 0 piece then he also wins.

We all know that the aim of Chess is to checkmate the opponent's King, the aim of Go is to surround a larger total area of the board with one's stones than the opponent (count by scores). In Mathematical Chess, I think we must balance Chess and Go, the game−complexity is really high.

I want to evaluate every mathematical chess piece value. I'm studying Machine Learning, how can I continue with my idea? I need your help. This Chess-variant deserves much more research effort.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> I want to evaluate every mathematical chess piece value

Currently there are two chess engine models. In the first, the traditional one going back 50 years, the engine is programmed with the previously known chess piece values for use in positional evaluation. In the second, the AlphaZero model based on neural networks, the engine learns by playing against itself with perhaps a head start gained by putting in a large number of master games.

This suggests two possible approaches you could try.

The first obvious one is to program your own neural net to play Vietnamese Mathematical Chess and derive piece values from that once it reaches a certain level.

The second one relies on you having a very large database of Vietnamese mathematical chess games and using a statistical method called logistic regression. There is an interesting blog post by Rasmus Bååth in which he describes his efforts to derive from scratch the values of the chess pieces in the traditional game using logistic regression which you might find useful.

How successful Rasmus Bååth's approach was is open to some doubt. He got that a queen was worth 4x a pawn, however that may be a reflection of his data rather than his methods. The relative value he obtained for the other pieces does correspond to traditional values. So, evaluating the knight as "3" gives bishop as just over 3, rook as just over 5, queen as just under 9, but pawn as just over 2.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Create a computer program or engine for that variant, then you can try to find the optimal piece values or other engine parameters by using a parameter optimizer like this parameter optimizer. I am the author of this optimizer.

---
Tags: strategy, chess-variants, evaluation, point-value, game-complexity
---


title: Shortest game to "elegant" mate

text:
# Question
Title: Shortest game to "elegant" mate
Define an "elegant" checkmate as one in which

* the king is not on the edge of the board
* the king and each of the 8 squares surrounding it are each attacked by exactly one, different opponent piece. (In other words: 9 pieces each attack exactly one of those squares)
* none of the squares touching the king are occupied by pieces of the king's colour

For instance, this is an elegant checkmate:

```
8/3B1N2/2K5/8/4k3/1N1P2P1/2P2PP1/8 w - - 0 1

```

Now, what is the shortest game that leads to an elegant checkmate?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I'm not very good at proofgames, but if I counted correctly, 12 move suffice:

```
[FEN "rnb3nr/pppp1Npp/4p3/8/4k3/1QP2PPB/PPP2PKP/RN5R w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

Moves are obvious: Black sacrifices `B-b4-c3` and `Q-xBg5-g4-f3` in that order, White plays `Q-d5-b3`. Last moves are `10.Nf7+ Ke4 11.Kg2 Qf3+ 12.exf3#`. An retro expert will manage 11, at least :-)

Proof game:

```
[FEN ""]
1.Nf3 e6 2.Ne5 Bb4 3.g3 Bc3 4.dxc3 Ke7 5.Qd5 Kf6 6.Qb3 Kf5 7.Bg5 Qxg5 8.Bh3 Qg4 9.Kf1 Ke4 10.Nxf7 Qh5 {Black has one extra tempo to waste, at this point or before} 11.Kg2 Qf3 12.exf3#

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think this achieves the task in 15 plies (mate after White's 8th move):

```
[FEN ""]
1. b4 d6 2. a4 Bf5 3. Nf3 Bd3 4. Ba3 Kd7 5. Nc3 Kc6 6. Nd5 Kxd5 7. e4+ Kc4 8. cxd3#

```

The 9 white units necessary for mate are 5 pawns, 2 bishops, 1 knight and the queen.

In case you are bothered by the two Bishop+Pawn batteries (one might consider than c5 is attacked twice, by Pb4 and Ba3), then we need one more move:

```
[FEN ""]
1. Nc3 d5 2. Nb5 Kd7 3. e4 Kc6 4. Nxa7+ Kc5 5. Ke2 d4 6. a3 Kc4 7. b4 Nd7 8. Nf3 d3+ 9. cxd3#

```

Mate is delivered by 5 pawns, 2 knights, 1 king and 1 queen.

---
Tags: problems, checkmate
---


# Question
Title: What to do if in a tournament game with no time control, my opponent plays very slowly?
I recently played a tournament game with no time control. It takes my opponent at least 5 minutes, sometimes longer, to make (almost) every move. The game started at 6pm and lasted 3.5 hours. If I also move as slow as he does, the game may not end until midnight and it will be inconvenient for myself and my family (my opponent is an unmarried man). Later in the game, I lost my patience and made a few fast moves (including a blunder) to avoid dragging the game out too long. Eventually the game ended in a draw.

Technically he did not violate any rules; without a time control, he has every right to take his time for all the moves. Practically I find it inconvenient for me. Is there anything that I can do about it in a no-time-control tournament?

# Answer
> 3 votes
I have only ever been the arbiter in two official tournaments where there was no time control. Both were for very weak juniors. Games were scheduled for 30 minutes and so any game that lasted for 20 minutes and which looked like it could drag on had a clock introduced with 5 minutes per player and no increment. In those cases the mere introduction of a clock led to an impressive speeding up of the players.

I'm guess that you are neither a junior nor a very weak player, which begs the question, how did you even manage to find such a tournament which would accept you as one of the players?

Nevertheless, the answer to your problem is simple. If such tournaments don't suit you then don't enter. Unless you are incarcerated in an institution you almost certainly have other choices open to you.

If the tournament is particularly attractive to you for other reasons then perhaps suggest to the organizers that they introduce clocks for games which last more than a certain time, say 4 hours in the case that it starts at 6pm. After all, the organizers will also have homes to go to and they also have a limit on the time they are allowed in the building.

If 3.5 hours is too long for you to play a game of chess (insufficient patience / sitzfleisch) then play in tournaments with quick, clock-controlled time controls like rapid or blitz.

---
Tags: time-control, time-management
---


# Question
Title: Purpose of h4 on the main line of the Caro Kann
I'm beginning to study the Caro Kann defense and I don't fully understand why white plays h4-h5 on the main line. I can see that you get some space with that move, but the pawn on h5 might be a weakness in the future.

The line I'm talking about is

```
[fen ""]

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

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
> the pawn on h5 might be a weakness in the future

The pawn is currently protected twice, by the rook on h1 and the knight g3. Meanwhile it controls the important g6 square (black can't put a piece on g6 and pushing a pawn there is going to seriously weaken f7 after white captures with hxg6).

The maneuver whereby black's bishop has been forced back to h7 means that after Bd3 black is forced to either exchange a bishop which has made three moves for one that has made only one move or submit to misplacing the h8 rook on h7 also giving up kingside castling rights.

# Answer
> 4 votes
This h4-h5 is quite interesting, especially since it forces black to play h6 to hide the bishop, which gives White the advantage in development. As you can see, White has advanced both his knights to the kingside, and is preparing to bring both his bishops in the game. Black on the other hand, has a weird kingside structure in my opinion.

Not only that, White has a lot more space to work with. White is also protecting that h5 pawn well, as well as possibly playing Be2 and maybe maneuvering the knight to secure that h5 pawn well.

The h5 pawn is also preventing Black from playing g6 to possibly fianchetto his bishop.

And as what @briantowers has mentioned, Black's bishop is now on h7, and after Bd3, White forces the capture.

Furthermore, this results in White forcing black to castle queenside, unless you want your Black king to be in grave danger. However, if Black castles queenside, there it the possibility that White can *also* start an attack on the queenside. However, as @PhillipRoe mentioned, white sort of *has* to castle queenside after pushing that h pawn so far, and further attacking the Black king using White's queenside pawns can be a bad idea, due to it opening up the White king.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Good answers from the others. However, nobody mentioned that when/if black castles kingside (traditionally the most common way to play), this h pawn thrust has already started a kingside assault. By forcing h6 from black, we now have a hook to attack, and the common follow-up g4-g5 pairs well with this earlier h5 move. Now g5 hits the h6 hook, and black cannot keep the kingside closed.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Existing answers make fair points, but are slightly one-sided. Noone has mentioned the issue of what White is to do with their own King. By advancing on the K-side, White is almost forced into castling Q-side, where there are few defensive pieces, and thanks to c6, the Black Queen can come out menacingly to a5,b6 or c7. As far as I can see, the advance h4 goes in and out of fashion. Certainly it is the most ambitious, but you are right to say that the pawn may be a weakness. Sure it is defended right now, but do you want to keep that Rook on h1 for the rest of the game? White has grabbed space, but it is not in the center of the board.

I do not think it means much to ask if h4 is correct. Many years of experience demonstrate that it is a playable line, but it is also playable to do without it. The best question is whether it suits your temperament to play a move that makes demands on both players

---
Tags: opening, caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: Is this queen vs. pawn endgame position winnable for black?
Came across a puzzle that stopped at this point. How can black win from this position? White to move.

# Answer
Yes, this position can be won by black. Here's how:

These types of positions show the concept of controlling the million-dollar square. Now, what is that square? In this position, it is **b6**. Why is it called ***million-dollar square***? It is called the ***million-dollar square*** because it's the most important square which decides whether black would win this or draw this position.

```
[FEN "6k1/8/KP6/8/8/8/8/6q1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. b7 Qa1+ 2. Kb6 Qb2+ 3. Ka7 Qd4+ 4. Ka6 Qb4 5. Ka7 Qa5+ 6. Kb8 Kf7 7. Kc8 Qc5+ 8. Kb8 Ke7 9. Ka8 Qa5+ 10. Kb8 Ke8 11. Kc8 Qd8#)

```

## How does Black win?

The basic idea to win these types of positions is to make the White king go in front of the pawn (on the queening square).

1. After b7, the black queen starts giving checks.
2. As soon as the white king is in front of the pawn(on the queening square), bring the black king closer to the pawn by one square.
3. If the white king starts to run then give checks and force it to move in front of the pawn (on the queening square).
4. Repeat steps 1,2 and 3 till you checkmate or win the pawn.

## Learn more about Queen vs Pawn endgames

1. This is a lichess study
2. Youtube video explaining some Queen vs Pawn endgame
> 5 votes

# Answer
This is a standard Queen vs. Pawn endgame. The queen usually, but not always, wins. The standard idea is to check the enemy king repeatedly until it is forced to move in front of the pawn. This gives you a free move , which lets you advance your own king. If the opponent allows it, moving the queen in front of the pawn (...Qb8 in the diagram position) also wins.

It turns out that this general plan usually works, but fails if the pawn is a bishop's pawn or rook's pawn. In this case the defender can threaten a stalemate defense (e.g. if the pawn is on c2 and the king is on a1, then Qxc2 stalemates the king). There are exceptions and intricacies, though (see the article linked above).

In your case the pawn is a knight's pawn, so Black wins. If you know the general idea you should be able to find a win even against Stockfish, since it's hard to ruin your position. I would suggest trying it.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Yes, and its pretty simple. Black just plays Qg8 covering the queening square and white has no way to advance the pawn. Black will then advance his king until he captures the pawn and then it's a simple K,Q vs K endgame.

Most of the time that works in these types of endgames however if the pawn is a bishop pawn (c or f file). white can force a draw under certain circumstances ie if white can get to the 7th rank before black can move his king in. The reason is that there are stalemating opportunities. For example, white could move to the corner square (h8) and black can't take the pawn because it would be stalemate.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: endgame
---


# Question
Title: How do I find good games to memorise for the openings I play?
I have read other questions like this and I find people responding "just doing tactics is less effort and helps more". But personally, I find it really easy to memorise things, so I'm interested in trying it anyway. So please consider this question under the assumption that memorising games is the goal, rather than suggesting better ways to study (unless someone feels very strongly, I guess). Of course I will be studying the game properly first, so I'm not memorising without understanding or anything, the point of the question is just about finding good games.

I thought I would just find some recent games of super-GMs and study those, but I quickly realised they are probably a bit complex for my level (2000 rapid on Lichess).

Instead, since I currently play the Caro-Kann/Open Sicilian/Ruy Lopez almost exclusively, I decided I would find an opening book and look at the games they show as examples. I skimmed through Houska's Caro-Kann book, but it looks like most of the games might have come from Blitz, (as soon as theory ends there are some pretty bad blunders from both sides in the games that I looked at).

So where should I be looking for exemplar games? There are plenty of miniatures etc. for the Open Sicilian and the Ruy, but I am mostly struggling to find a good source for Caro-Kann games, since most GMs seem to stick with the Najdorf, and I am assuming I'm not good enough yet to start playing complex Sicilians.

# Answer
Simple suggestion: Lichess.

* Tons of games shown, just enter opening moves.
* Stockfish addable on the fly.
* Hit "book" (button down left) for master games.
> 9 votes

# Answer
You can't memorize chess. There have been players with insane memories and they tend to take the opposite approach (Pillsbury comes to mind).

It will help you a lot more to learn the ideas behind the moves.

However, a GM once told me to memorize one game per day. Play a game and then look it up on a database like chessgames.com or https://www.365chess.com/. See how your favorite player played the same position. Learn the game and learn why they made the moves they did.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, memorization
---


title: How to learn endgame theory

text:
# Question
Title: How to learn endgame theory
Related: How to improve on the early endgame?

How exactly do I study or learn endgame theory? Is it just memorizing certain positions that are quite common and knowing how to attack and counter?

# Answer
> 7 votes
## How to learn endgame theory

The endgame, as said by many top-level players, is the most difficult part of the game. It decides whether you will win, lose or end up drawing the game. This is the only reason why Magnus Carlsen ends up grinding the win in almost every endgame (except those which are *drawish*).

Endgames require a lot of practice or I should say concept-building practice. There are tons of endgame theories out there, like Lucena, King Square, Rook vs knight or bishop, equal pawns, etc. **One must understand the concept behind that theory and not memorize that particular position. Instead, one should try to memorize the pattern, because you will not get the same position every time (*just like tactics*).** The best way to study endgames is by practicing the endgame positions. This way people will build the habit and required intuition for the endgame.

*One cannot become Magnus Carlsen in the endgame in a month or two, not even a year*. It requires you several years of daily practice and an intuition-building process to master it. After lots of experience in practicing and playing endgames, you will find out that the moves will automatically come to you, and you won't have to think long to find the best move.

It looks like you want to know how to play endgames.

## Some common points to keep in mind:

* The **King** is one of the most important pieces in the endgame. Learn how to use it to block or shoulder another king from entering your territory. This is basically applicable in King-pawn endgames.
* Learn the use case of **bishops** in **open** positions and **knights** in **closed** positions. Try to exchange if the piece does not adjust to the type of position. Don't think about this too much! You'll learn it slowly as you practice.
* **Blocking** the king from entering the territory helps in winning most of the games. The **Rook** is the most useful piece for this purpose.
* Learn the **Rule of +2**. One needs to have at least two more pieces than your opponent to attack them. This is applicable for both defending and attacking.
* **Opposition** plays a major role in endgames. One must know where to keep the piece to get the upper hand in the position. This is why one must never try to be passive in endgames.

## Sources for study:

# Answer
> 7 votes
The reason that Magnus Carlsen is a superb endgame player is not because he has memorized a lot of standard positions or that he has memorized "the patterns behind them". It is that he has a wonderful imagination and nobody can tell you how to acquire that. Like a sculptor, he sees the statue inside the stone and knows how to release it. I am not completely sure that you do want to "Learn endgame theory". You may want to "learn how to play endgames" which is a bit different.

There a *great* many posts related to this. As far as I can see, they mostly contain good advice that I will not try to replicate, but there are a few rules to follow if you are to avoid common mistakes.

1. Realize that the King is a strong piece. If there is no risk of being mated, his fighting power is roughly that of a minor piece, but unlike either a Bishop or a Knight, there are no gaps in his armor. From an early stage, ask yourself how your King will be used. As the endgame approaches, whenever you have a spare move, consider nudging him a square closer to the action.
2. Avoid passivity, unless there is really no choice. This applies especially to Rooks, which can get bogged down in a maze of Pawns. Rooks need open lines to display their power. If a Rook is the only piece that can defend a weak Pawn, and if doing so would reduce its mobility, you should always try to find a counterattack instead.
3. Remember the "Rule of Two Weaknesses". One weakness (isolated Pawn, exposed King) can often be defended, but if there are two, the attacker can often switch between them, and the defender may not have have enough manoeuvrability to keep up. Good endgame players know how to do this. Great endgame players know how to create the situation.
4. Never make an unmotivated Piece exchange. Weak players often exchange a piece for no better reason than that it is possible and will result in there being "less to think about". Strong players usually prefer to leave all options open, at least until the strategic objectives have clarified.

Having said this, there is some indispensable theory, available in many books. When can you win with your last Pawn, under a variety of conditions? What is, or is not, mating material? But above all, teach yourself to enjoy endgames.

# Answer
> 4 votes
"Checkmate ends the game". So, the first step in learning endgame theory is learning the basic checkmates - KRR vs K, KQ vs K, KR vs K, KBB vs K and KBN vs K.

There is no point in reaching a simple theoretical won endgame if you can't finish it off. A cruel opponent will refuse to resign and you will be embarrassed by the 50 move rule. This first step is vital and fortunately it is also the easiest.

The second phase involves learning what kinds of positions you can turn into one of these basic mating combinations and how to get there.

There are three key components:

1. material
2. position
3. turn

Taking the simplest combination of K+P vs K the result depends on where the pieces are and whose turn it is. For example white king on e1, pawn on e2 and black king on e8. Is it a white win or a draw? The correct answer is that we don't know until we know whose turn it is. White to move is a win. Black to move is a draw.

There are key squares in relation to the position of the pawn which the white king must be able to reach to force a win. If black can prevent that then the result will be a draw. Like the simple mates you just need to learn this stuff.

KRB vs KR is a theoretical draw but there is a difficult way to win if black goes wrong. It is important to know the ideas involved so that you can win with the RB when your opponent goes wrong and similarly when you just have the R so you don't throw away half a point. With the extra bishop there are positions from which you can win. You need to know what they are and how to win from there. That way you know what you are aiming for if you have the extra bishop and you know what to avoid if you just have the rook.

In my opinion the best endgame resource is the two DVD volume set which GM Nick Pert produced for Ginger GM. I thikn it has all the endgame knowledge you will ever need in audiovisual format which many of us find easier to absorb than books.

Here are two YouTube trailers for the series, one from DVD 1 and one from DVD 2.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Start with the most fundamental endings such as king and pawn vs. king, king rook and pawn vs. king and rook.

Then learn how more complex endings are made of combinations of simpler endings. For example, you may see how to exchange a complex ending into a winning king and pawn ending.

Finally learn how to transition from a complex middle game to a complex winning ending.

practice -\> study -\> practice -\> study -\> practice -\> study

# Answer
> 1 votes
For a beginner, probably working backwards is most productive:

1. If you have K and Q and the opponent just has their K, you should know how to checkmate in a short amount of time (and avoid stalemate).

1b. This means if you have K and P against K, and can queen the P (without stalemate), you will win.
2. If you have K and R against K, you should win in a small number of steps, but it requires more thought than K and Q. But it should be known to you like the back of your hand.

Everything beyond this is more complicated... K and one or two minor pieces against another K and minor piece is complicated.

But/and if you can see how to *simplify* to one of the easy cases, then you have won. (And try to avoid allowing your opponent to reach that: e.g., if your opponent is ahead by one pawn, don't allow them to trade all pieces to leave the situation at K+P against your K!)

# Answer
> 0 votes
Get a good endgame book. I would reccomend Silman's but any book that teaches the basics is probably fine. Even Reuben Fine's book is probably Fine...sorry for that. Fine's book is what I started with but it's pretty dense and more of a reference work than instructive.

Also, learn to analyze the position.

Look at the pawn structure. You should be mostly concerned with passed pawns and potential passed pawns. The pawns will dictate how the endgame goes.

Bring your king to the center as soon as the endgame starts

Advance the unopposed pawn

Create a passed pawn

Principle of creating a secondary weakness

This is a very instructive endgame I saw in a book once. It will teach you everything I said above. In this case the unopposed pawn is the b pawn. You want to advance it and create a passed pawn on the queenside. Black will be forced to stop that pawn but you will then move over to the king side and raid his pawns creating a secondary weakness. It's impossible for black to cover both weaknesses.

Practice against a strong engine until you get it. This is a forced win for white so you should be able to beat any engine of any strength. Once you get it you'll be better at the endgame than 90% of the players out there.

```
6k1/p4ppp/8/8/8/8/PP3PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
End-game is the easiest part for learning and everyone should start learning chess from end-game and then can migrate to middle and start-game, you can solve some puzzles, read books(Lasker method is recommended) and chess magazine, watching videos and also chess.com and lichess websites has some good training materials for learning end-games.

---
Tags: endgame, theory
---


# Question
Title: What strategic principles contribute to black's advantage in this position?
I calculated to the following position during a game:

```
[FEN "r1r3k1/5pbp/p2qpnp1/3p4/3P4/2N1PB1P/P5P1/2R1QRK1 w - - 1 22"]

```

At the time I believed black would have a slight positional edge beyond their extra pawn, the black queen is more active and the white rook on f1 is terrible - but white has ideas of improving the f1 rook and trying to trade queens. I guessed a computer might give the position -1.5 or -2.

Stockfish evaluates this at -4.3 (Depth 26), almost a full piece worse for white than I had assumed. What ideas am I missing in this position, are the positions of the queens really that important? What can I do to avoid this kind of misevaluation in the future?

# Answer
> 1 votes
> What ideas am I missing in this position

In this position, not only is White down a pawn, White also has a backwards e pawn, which Black can easily exploit with its knight, queen and bishop. Especially since the Black bishop is dark-squared, the e3, d4 pawn structure can be easily broken. The White King is also quite unsafe, as what @briantowers has mentioned, as there are no pawns are dark-squares, leaving empty holes in White's position which Black's bishop can easily sneak into.

> are the positions of the queens really that important?

In my opinion, at the moment the queen's positions are not really important, *yet*. Especially in the endgame, well placed queen's can lead to one's advantage e.g. controlling more squares, controlling the center, more space to attack.

> What can I do to avoid this kind of miss-evaluation in the future?

When looking at a position, always evaluate the following in order (not 100% accurate)

1. Material advantage (whether one side has more pieces than the other) (for exceptions e.g. rook vs N+B, evaluate the position and placement and if they are enough to compensate for the 1 point)
2. Positional advantage (positioning of pieces)
3. King safety (under positional advantage, in this case, where Black's king is quite safe, while White's king is vulnerable due to the dark-squared pockets in White's position
4. Attack possibility (under positional advantage as well, King safety is *usually* top priority, unless your attack forces the opponent to do something else rather than continuing the attack on your king)

## Evaluation of position

After looking using lichess stockfish analysis to make the best moves at depth 22-23, I came up with this

```
[FEN "r1r3k1/5pbp/p2qpnp1/3p4/3P4/2N1PB1P/P5P1/2R1QRK1 w - - 1 1"]

1. Na4 Rxc1 2. Qxc1 Bh6 3. Nc5 Rc8 4. Qd2 a5 5. Re1 Qd8 6. a4 Bf8 7. Rc1 Ne8 8. Be2 Bh6

```

As you can see, Black is constantly putting pressure on that weak e3 pawn, and White has no choice but to try to protect it. Additionally, if you're wondering, *Oh, but White has an excellent outpost for the knight!*. You're not wrong, but the problem is Black can easily kick it away or force a trade. Black has enough pieces (rook, bishop, queen, knight) to attack that piece and can force a trade whenever Black wants. Plus, the White knight is not really doing anything but sitting there.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think that quite possibly we have here a case where the computer gives too high a numerical value to its assessment. Computers sometimes give high evaluations that they cannot translate into winning positions, for example, they often fail to recognize a fortress. Black is undoubtedly better, for reasons that others have given, but to be four points better, there should be a clear way to exploit that superiority, but I do not see it.

White has no aggressive play at all, apart from putting that Knight on c5, and they have weak pawns on a2 and e3 that need to be defended, so Black can pretty much do what they want, but what do they want to do? It has been well observed that chess games are not won by achieving good positions but by making strong moves. What are they? the SF "analysis" provided by @DialFrost is not inspiring. Has Black made any progress? Has the evaluation changed? What does SF want to do with its Bishop.

A "principle" to bear in mind is that "nothing is weak unless it can be attacked". and as things stand, e3 and a2 are inaccessible. @Dialfrost suggests that e3 can also be attacked by BN and BQ. But how? There is no way at present for BQ to join the attack, and although BN can manoeuver to the beautiful square f5 it can just be taken by the WB. How in fact should BN be used? The square d6 is attractive, with access to b5, c4, e4 and f5, but can be taken on any of those squares. Maybe the best use for BN is to exchange off Nc5.

Probably what I would do as Black is to follow @cousin\_pete and try to penetrate on the b-file with my Rook and generate sufficiently strong threats that White is glad to exchange major pieces, so that BK can join in. Opposite Bishops do not always guarantee a draw. You need to visualize remote endgames to know what exchanges are desirable.

Something else to take seriously is an Exchange sacrifice on c5. The Pawn will fall also. so Black will have two Pawns for the exchange, and a diagonal along which the Queen and Bishop can operate against e3. Probably Black does not want to exchange a Rook before sacrificing, because after the sacrifice it will increase his opportunities to have one Rook remaining.

One way and another, there is a lot to be thought about in this position, and quite certainly it will not play itself. I believe that the OP is quite right to be puzzled because even if the computers evaluation is correct it would take GM-level play to convert it to victory with assurance.

# Answer
> 0 votes
> What ideas am I missing in this position

1. King safety is probably the most important feature. White's king is very vulnerable with all the weak dark squares around it. Black's king is very safe.
2. No White dark squared bishop to protect the weaknesses while Black does have a dark squared bishop to attack them.
3. Opposite coloured bishops favour the attacker. In this case Black.
4. White's backward weak pawn on e3 is much more vulnerable and hard to protect (no pawn help, on a dark square) than Black's weak pawn on f7 (can always advance to f5 for double pawn protection.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Welcome Green!

> What ideas am I missing in this position, are the positions of the queens really that important? What can I do to avoid this kind of miss-evaluation in the future?

As you note, apart from the extra pawn, Black's Q has more activity. I think the Black Q mobility in this position especially on the black squares may be decisive.

Let's look at plans for White: White is on the defensive and is trying to hold for a draw. A nice square for the White N is c5 so a plan could be N:a4 then N:c5 and await developments, exchanging pieces when possible, ideally hoping to get to an opposite B ending a pawn down with good drawing chances.

Black has several plans and will try to invade the White position via the open b file and semi-open c file with her heavy pieces. The c4 square looks very inviting to try to get the N there where it would be dominant.

If it is Black to move then Q:a3 (preventing N:a4) initiates one plan to follow with Ra8:b8 then to R:b2 then N:e8, N:e6 eyeing c4 (exact sequence of course depending on White's responses) and very soon White will be under great pressure.

Black has targets in the weak 'a' and 'e' pawns. I don't own a chess program to check but I suspect that the White position will soon collapse.

Perhaps you mis-evaluated the importance of piece mobility and that Black is able to systematically improve her position whilst White has to sit and wait.

---
Tags: strategy, positional-play, advantage
---


title: A helpmate in 15 moves

text:
# Question
Title: A helpmate in 15 moves
I recently came across this ChessBase India article on "engine defying problems." Here's a problem from the helpmate section. We need to reach the helpmate in **15** moves. I thought for a long time but couldn't come up with anything useful. Any idea on how to solve this?

```
[Title "Leonid Lyubashevsky & Sergei Tkachenko, Shahmatnaya Kompozicija 2nd HM, 2004, Helpmate In 15"]
[FEN "8/4p3/4P1p1/2p2pP1/1pP1pP1k/1Pp1Kp2/2P2P2/NB6 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
**First Thoughts**

1. White only has one move - moving the bishop between b1 and a2. Whatever black does he better not take the bishop else stalemate.
2. Black is going to have to start by taking the knight on a1 followed by the pawn on c2 to let the light squared bishop out. Then the bishop could take the e4, f5 and g6 pawns, queen the g5 pawn and mate. Let's see how that would work:

**First Attempt**

```
[Title "Helpmate in a lot more than 15"]
[Startflipped "0"]
[FEN "8/4p3/4P1p1/2p2pP1/1pP1pP1k/1Pp1Kp2/2P2P2/NB6 b - - 0 1"]

1... Kh3 2. Ba2 Kg2 3. Bb1 Kf1 4. Ba2 Ke1 5. Bb1 Kd1 6. Ba2 Kc1 7. Bb1 Kb2 8. Ba2 Kxa1 9. Bb1 Kb2 10. Ba2 Kxc2 11. Bb1 Kxb3 12. Bxe4 Kxc4 13. Bxf5 Kd5 14. Bxg6 Ke6 15. Bf5 Kf7 16. g6+ Kf8 17. g7+ Ke8 18. g8=Q#

```

Now, that is the fastest that white can queen and white queens with mate and it's still not quick enough. That means that somehow white has to mate with just the bishop, king and pawns. That means finding a square on the board for the black king to get to where white can move the bishop to give check and mate, so it must be a white square. Maybe f5 with the g6 pawn still on the board to take away a flight square.

Let's try that.

**Second Attempt**

```
[Title "Helpmate in 15 or 16"]
[Startflipped "0"]
[FEN "8/4p3/4P1p1/2p2pP1/1pP1pP1k/1Pp1Kp2/2P2P2/NB6 b - - 0 1"]

1... Kh3 2. Ba2 Kg2 3. Bb1 Kf1 4. Ba2 Ke1 5. Bb1 Kd1 6. Ba2 Kc1 7. Bb1 Kb2 8. Ba2 Kxa1 9. Bb1 Kb2 10. Ba2 Kxc2 11. Bb1 Kxb3 12. Bxe4 Kxc4 13. Bxf5 Kd5 14. Bd3 {Have to let the king take e6 as that's the only way to get to f5} Kxe6 15. Bf1 Kf5 16. Bh3#

```

That's mate in 30 ply, 15 black moves and 15 white moves.
> 16 votes

---
Tags: problems
---


title: What is the Botez gambit?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the Botez gambit?
A friend of mine told me about this term used when you lose your queen, the Botez gambit, named after Alexandra Botez. It seems this term has arrived to casual, not necessarily young, (on-line) players like my friend, and has gone beyond the anglophone world.

The term has been adapted into Spanish (*gambito Botez*), Portuguese (*gambito Botez*), French (*gambit Botez*), Catalan (*gambit Botez*). In Italian, the English term seems to be used.

When exactly do you use this term? Where does it come from?

# Answer
> 12 votes
**Botez Gambit:** A joke term for when you give away your Queen, intentionally or unintentionally, without adequate compensation (also known as blundering your Queen).

According to Brian Towers♦, GM Ben Finegold "coined the term after a long match against WFM Alexandra Botez in which she routinely gave her queen away when the time pressure got to her." However, a Chess.com article claims it was viewers of the BotezLive Twitch channel that created the meme term.

GM Hikaru Nakamura has an entire speedrun series dedicated to this (see Part 1, or view all the games). In his description, he denotes the Botez Gambit as blundering and/or hanging the Queen.

The answer is already in the question so I am making this a community wiki.

---
Tags: terminology, famous-players
---


# Question
Title: History of physical fitness in the world championships
Who can forget this picture from Kortchnoi's preparation for his 1981 match against Karpov?

More on Kortchnoi's physical preparation for the match in Merano in this 1986 documentary made by English IM William Hartson from about 22:40 here.

I thought that the first world champion contender to train physically for the big match was Bobby Fischer. According to this article:

> Years after the Fischer-Spassky world championship match in Reykjavik, Iceland, Harry Sneider, a friend, fitness trainer and world champion weight-lifter, recalled Fischer’s training regime:
>
> “He really believed in a good preparation,” Sneider said.
>
> “He loved power (training) with weights, he swam 45 minutes a day and he was a ‘world champion’ walker. He takes enormous strides and can do that for 3 1/2 hours. He also liked playing tennis.”

There is video clip, too, of Fischer working out in Hartson's documentary round about the 12:45 mark.

But then I came across these comments in an article, *From Steinitz to the 21st Century*, by Craig Pritchett in the February edition of English chess magazine "Chess":

> In defeating Alekhine, Euwe discerned that the champion's greatest strength derived from his unceasingly deep research into the widest range of complex openings. Helped by his second, Hans Kmoch, Euwe prepared himself thoroughly to withstand that challenge. **Euwe also worked especially hard to establish a clear advantage in physical fitness**.

Physical fitness also gets a mention for Botvinnik:

> Botvinnik eventually took opening research, **fitness** and coaching regimes to an altogether different level.

So, Fischer wasn't the first. Both Botvinnik and Euwe trained physically to be fit to contest and win the world championship. Was Euwe the first to take professionalism to this level and train physically for something which most people think of as a brain sport?

# Answer
> 12 votes
Alekhine is the first, which is not surprising because he's in many regards the prototypical grandmaster.

> Capablanca entered the match with no technical or physical preparation, while **Alekhine got himself into good physical condition** and had thoroughly studied Capablanca's play.

Source

# Answer
> 2 votes
I'm pretty sure Korchnoi was just preparing to run from the KGB. So, that's a little different.

Both Fischer and Kasparov put a lot of emphasis on physical training for matches. Possibly more than actually playing chess.

---
Tags: history, training, world-championship
---


# Question
Title: Find a forced checkmate on dark squares only
In a recent Youtube video, the black player reaches the following position

```
[White "NN"]
[Black "Chess Simp"]
[FEN "r2r4/ppp2p1k/2n4P/4p3/P3n3/B1P1P2P/P1qPK2P/R6R b - - 0 1"]

1... Rxd2+ 2.Kf3 Rf2+ (2.Kf1 Rxh2 3.Rxh2 Qxh2 {And mate to follow on the second rank.}) (2.Ke1 Rf2 {White cannot stop checkmate on d2.}) 3.Kg4 Qd2 {The queen joins the attack via e3 or d8}

```

Now, obviously black is completely winning and under normal circumstances has mate in 4. However, due to the constraints of a self-imposed challenge, black is only allowed to move pieces and pawns to dark squares. Nevertheless, the overwhelming material advantage should lead to checkmate soon. I've put what I think are the best continuations for black, but I'm having trouble finding a forced checkmate in the Kf3 line. Any help?

# Answer
> 4 votes
It looks that your variation should follow with Kh6 first, other than any Queen move. See some variations:

```
[Title "Variations after 1...Rxd2+"]
[FEN "r2r4/ppp2p1k/2n4P/4p3/P3n3/B1P1P2P/P1qPK2P/R6R b - - 0 1"]

1...Rxd2+ 2. Kf3 Rf2 3. Kg4 Kxh6 4. Bc1 Nf6+ 5. Kh4 Rf4+ 6. exf4 (6. Kg3 Qf2#) Qf2#
(4. Bf8+ Rxf8 5. a3 Ne7 6. Rad1 Rf4+ 7. exf4 Qf2 8. Rdf1 Nf6#)
(4. Kh4 Rf4+ 5. exf4 Qf2+ 6. Kg4 Qf4#)
(4...Ne7 5. a3 Rf4+ 6. exf4 Qf2 7. fxe5+ Kg7 8. Rg1 Rh8 9. Bh6+ Rxh6 10. c4 Rh4#)

```

I have been checking this for a few hours, it looks that after King to g4, ...Kxh6 gives the best chances. Black can also put a8-Rook into game from the d8-square, it can be sacrificed from d4 to open the position.

EDITED for `4. Raf1` variations:

```
4. Raf1 Qd2, 5. Kh4 Qd8+, 6. Be7 Qxe7+, 7. Kg4 Qg5#
4. Raf1 Qd2, 5. Rxf2 Qxf2, 6. Bf8+ Rxf8, 7. h4 Qxe3, 8. Rf1 Ne7, 9. Rxf7 Nf6+, 10. Rxf6+ Rxf6 11. a3 Rf5#
4. Raf1 Qd2, 5. Rxf2 Qxf2, 6. Bf8+ Rxf8, 7. h4 Qxe3, 8. Rf1 Ne7, 9. h5 Nf2+ 10. Kh4 Qf4#
4. Raf1 Qd2, 5. Rxf2 Qxf2, 6. Bf8+ Rxf8, 7. h4 Qxe3, 8. Rf1 Ne7, 9. h5 Nf2+ 10. Rxf2 Qxf2 11. a3 Rd8 12. a5 Rd2 13. c4 Qf4+ 14. Kh3 Rxh2#
4. Raf1 Qd2, 5. Rhg1 Qxe3 6. Bc1 Qxc1 7. Rxc1 Rf4#
4. Raf1 Qd2, 5. Rhg1 Qxe3 6. Bc1 Qxc1 7. Rxf2 Qxg1+ 8. Kf3 Qxf2+ 9. Kxe4 Rd8 10. a3 Qf4#

```

---
Tags: checkmate, puzzles
---


# Question
Title: Why is this a Checkmate? Pawn can capture queen?
I am just learning Chess. Why is this a checkmate? It's Black's turn, and White's queen threatens Black's king, so check. But if I play gxf8, the check is gone. Why doesn't the game let me do it?

# Answer
In the usual orientation of pictures, black starts at the top and moves *down*, so the pawn would have to capture *backward* to take the queen. The actual pattern you see is a prime example of a "back rank/row mate".
> 9 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, beginner, check
---


# Question
Title: Are there any protocols for folding chessboard, where the dividing line should appear?
A folding chessboard will always have a dividing line in between the 2 halves of the unit.
Is there a guideline where exactly the line should appear; Should it be between the armies (seen mostly) or should it be between the king and the queen?

**Notes**:

* Some people use the 2nd way (i.e. line between king & queen) reasoning that white side's rightmost should be a light square. Probably a manufacturing defect?!
* Above chessboard is only for the illustration purpose. May be I have chosen an image with a wrong arrangement.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't know whether there are any 'official' rules about this, but my guess is, that this comes down to the construction of the board.

If you have an example as in your picture it is pretty obvious, as the white pieces go on the first line (Which in the picture is set up incorrectly, as they are on the last line), and thus the folding is between armies.

If you have a board, that does not provide the numbering, you have to look on the field closest to you on your right side: this one has to be a light square. According to my observations, in most cases this means a folding between armies is correct, however, I've also seen one example, where a folding between king and queen was correct.

# Answer
> 3 votes
It should be between the two armies. Ultimately, the only actual thing that has to be setup correctly is the placement of the king and the queen, the h1 square must be a light square, and the white pieces start on the 1st and 2nd rank (optional).

The picture you have posted is incorrect in that the black and white pieces should be swapped.

---
Tags: opening, pieces, chessboards
---


# Question
Title: When should white prefer a Maroczy structure vs. a Kings Indian structure?
In two games quite different games that I played recently, I was playing white and had a very nice centre, but according to the engine I misjudged pushing (or not pushing) my d-pawn both times.

From my understanding of pawn structures, I could aim for a KID-type position by pushing d4-d5, or allow black to take on d4 for a Maroczy pawn structure. My question is simply how can I practically understand which is better?

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Rated Rapid game"]
[Date "2022.01.20"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2053"]
[BlackElo "2025"]
[TimeControl "900+10"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[UTCDate "2022.01.21"]
[UTCTime "07:12:31"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[ECO "C41"]
[Opening "Philidor Defense: Hanham Variation"]

1. e4 { [%clk 0:15:00] } 1... d6 { [%clk 0:15:00] } 2. Nf3 { [%clk 0:15:06] } 2... Nd7 { [%clk 0:15:05] } 3. d4 { [%clk 0:15:15] } 3... e5 { [%clk 0:15:08] } 4. d5 { [%clk 0:15:12] } 4... Ngf6 { [%clk 0:15:10] } 5. Bd3 { [%clk 0:15:18] } 5... Nc5 { [%clk 0:15:14] } 6. Qe2 { [%clk 0:15:13] } 6... Be7 { [%clk 0:15:16] } 7. b4 { [%clk 0:15:15] } 7... Nxd3+ { [%clk 0:15:19] } 8. Qxd3 { [%clk 0:15:24] } 8... a5 { [%clk 0:15:21] } 9. bxa5 { [%clk 0:14:29] } 9... Rxa5 { [%clk 0:15:21] } 10. c4 { [%clk 0:14:34] } 10... Bd7 { [%clk 0:15:21] } 11. h3 { [%clk 0:14:37] } 11... Qa8 { [%clk 0:15:28] } 12. Nc3 { [%clk 0:14:28] } 12... O-O { [%clk 0:15:04] } 13. O-O { [%clk 0:14:34] } 13... b6 { [%clk 0:14:57] } 0-1

```

(This was bad for white)

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Rated Classical game"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2024"]
[BlackElo "1886"]
[TimeControl "1800+0"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[UTCDate "2022.01.21"]
[UTCTime "07:15:07"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[ECO "E90"]
[Opening "King's Indian Defense: Normal Variation, Rare Defenses"]

1. d4 { [%eval 0.3] [%clk 0:30:00] } 1... Nf6 { [%eval 0.0] [%clk 0:30:00] } 2. c4 { [%eval 0.23] [%clk 0:29:59] } 2... d6 { [%eval 0.51] [%clk 0:30:00] } 3. Nc3 { [%eval 0.65] [%clk 0:29:56] } 3... g6 { [%eval 0.53] [%clk 0:30:00] } 4. e4 { [%eval 0.68] [%clk 0:29:54] } 4... Bg7 { [%eval 0.59] [%clk 0:30:00] } 5. Nf3 { [%eval 0.7] [%clk 0:29:48] } 5... O-O { [%eval 0.48] [%clk 0:29:59] } 6. h3 { [%eval 0.32] [%clk 0:29:39] } 6... c5?! { [%eval 0.89] } { Inaccuracy. e5 was best. } { [%clk 0:29:58] } (6... e5 7. d5 Nh5 8. g3 f5 9. exf5 gxf5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. g4) 7. Be3 { [%eval 0.72] [%clk 0:28:50] } 7... Nc6?! { [%eval 1.37] } { Inaccuracy. Qa5 was best. } { [%clk 0:29:44] } (7... Qa5 8. Bd3 cxd4 9. Nxd4 Nc6 10. O-O Be6 11. Be2 Nxd4 12. Bxd4) 8. Be2?! { [%eval 0.45] } { Inaccuracy. d5 was best. } { [%clk 0:28:36] } (8. d5 Na5 9. Be2 b6 10. Qc2 e6 11. O-O e5 12. Nh2 Ne8) 8... cxd4 { [%eval 0.87] [%clk 0:29:42] } 9. Nxd4 { [%eval 0.83] [%clk 0:28:35] } 1-0

```

(This was fine for white, but apparently pushing d4-d5 as annotated was better).

# Answer
> 1 votes
```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 d6 2. Nf3 Nd7 3. d4 e5 4.Bc4 Be7 5.O-O

```

Keep the pawn on d4, because Nf3xd4 gives you a strong knight on d4.

Keep the d5 square free for a Nb1-c3-d5 jump.

Also, to keep the a2-g8 diagonal open for the light squared bishop.

You might tuck the bishop away with a2-a3 and Bc4-a2.

Play a Rf1-e1 and h2-h3 setup.

Sometimes Nb1-d2-f1-g3 or -e3 can be interesting.

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 g6 4. e4 Bg7 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 c5 7. d5

```

When placing pawns on light squares, make sure your light squared bishop stays useful.

Here, d4-d5 stops Nb8-c6-d4.

It also keeps the position closed, which is good, because the king is still on e1.

You might attack with Qd1-d2, g2-g4, Ng1-e2-g3, h2-h4-h5.

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


# Question
Title: At the Grandmaster level, at what amount of additional time per move do the benefits become negligible?
Naturally, having more time to ponder each move lets skilled players figure out better decisions and avoid errors one might make when there is a pressing time limit, with more time allowing more informed moves.

However, we're also just human, and even the smartest chess players have imperfect memory and ability to envision deeper and deeper decision trees, so at some point the benefits of additional time would become negligible. In general, how much time per move would be sufficient such that increasing it further would not result in a noticeable improvement at the grandmaster level?

I'd like to focus on just the human computation aspect, so you can ignore fatigue or attention-span effects from spending many hours on a single chess game.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> I'd like to focus on just the human computation aspect, so you can ignore fatigue or attention-span effects from spending many hours on a single chess game.

I find this hard, because human capabilities are a big factor in setting time limits for a game.

Let's assume that a GM-level player makes their best move after about 20 minutes of thinking.

40 moves with 20 minutes per move, per player, is 40 * 20 * 2 = 1600 minutes of play, about 26 hours.

A human player is unlikely to enjoy or perform well for longer than 7 hours.

The increment is there so a player has enough time to make their move, press the clock and write down the move on the scoresheet.

To avoid crazy timescrambles where pieces fly everywhere.

To keep time trouble civilized.

Another aspect is bathroom visits. If there was a 30 second increment and then every 10th move you get a 5 minute increment, that move would give you a bathroom break. Now that would increase quality of play, because you can end up stuck at the board playing only on increment while holding back your bathroom needs.

The human body, its capabilities, its needs, are a key aspect for answering this question.

I don't have a better answer than this for now.

---
Tags: grandmaster, time-control
---


# Question
Title: What fundamental mistakes were made in my game that slowly turned in to a loss?
I have trouble seeing what fundamental mistakes I made during this FIDE rated game I played today. I played as white. The game was analyzed without an engine with people at the tournament were we discussed various variations and what me and my opponent thought when doing certain moves. This was a 90min + 15sec increment game which lasted around 3 hours. When playing such long game I believe that one should and could find something beneficial out of these games since these will truly reflect my strengths and weaknesses due to the long time limit. However, I have trouble finding something useful out of this game. I have trouble learning something from it. After the analysis with the people at the tournament I came home and started Stockfish to analyze further. I noticed and understood the blunders, mistakes and inaccuracies that Stockfish pointed out but these seemed to me very specific to this game which is why I am asking for help on this site now.

Do any of you see something more general which is not specific to this game that I could dig more into and improve?

---

I was very comfortable with the game and felt that it went well until very late in the game were I notice that black has advantage which Stockfish apparently shows that it has been slightly piled up almost the whole game without my notice.

I'm guessing someone will point out the light-squared bishop. I know and knew my light-squared bishop was a really bad piece this game and I had a plan which was in progress to move it to e6.

This was my first FIDE rated match and hence I have no rating.

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

 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 c5 3. d5 d6 4. c4 e6 5. Nc3 exd5 6. Nxd5 Nxd5 7. cxd5 g6 8. e4 Bg7 9. Qb3 O-O 10. Nf3 Re8 11. Bd3 f5 12.Ng5 fxe4 13. Nxe4 Bf5 14. f3 Qc7 15. O-O Bxe4 16. fxe4 Nd7 17. Rae1 Bd4+ 18. Kh1 Ne5 19.Bxe5 Bxe5 20. Rf3 Qe7 21. Ref1 Rf8 22. Be2 Rxf3 23. Rxf3 Rb8 24. Rh3 Qg5 25. Qc2 Qf4 26. b3 Rf8 27.Qd1 g5 28. Bf3 g4 29. Rg3 h5 30. Qe2 Qc1+

```

# Answer
> 31 votes
Presumably you were hoping to play a London system, but your opponent tricked you out of it and you found yourself playing a Benoni where you did not find a plan. You did not have to play d5.

It was already a small mistake to recapture with the Knight on move 6. Maybe you were feeling nervous because it was your first rated game and so you felt inclined to simplify by trading pieces, but if you want to take advantage of having White you don't want to exchange pieces without some specific purpose like leaving your opponent with a bad Bishop. After the trade, you chance of an opening advantage has decreased, but your position is still quite OK.

I don't like 9. Qb3. You are not thinking about how to organize your army. That is a reasonable square for your Queen, but she does not cooperate with anybody else. On d2 she also protects the b2 pawn, and lines up for the typical Bh6 manoeuver later in the game.

You do not display awareness that in Benoni-type position Black can get strong play on the e-file and your e4 pawn will be vulnerable. You manage to avoid losing it but you end up with rather ineffective pieces. Your opponent might have been more ambitious and played 13...Qh4, forcing the weakening move g3. Bearing this in mind I think that 10. Nf3, which looks natural, was an inaccuracy. I would prefer 10. Bd3 to be followed by f3 and Ne2.

On move 16 I think you should recapture with the Bishop. After capturing with the pawn the pawn itself is a weakness and it obstructs the Bishop.

Although others have noted correctly that you traded too many pieces, it was not a mistake to take the Knight on e5. By now, you are not playing for an advantage, you are struggling to survive in an inferior position. That Knight is a strong piece and should remove it.

You are not in real danger of losing, though, until 24.Rh3. I can see no motive for this move, unless you felt you were building for some sort of attack, but there is nothing at all to support that. Black's excellent moves Q-g5-f4 caught you flat-footed and will make you remember that although opposite-colored Bishops may be drawish in the ending, they can lead to very one-sided middle games. Black plays this ending very well. Look at the position after move 26 and remember when YOU had doubled Rooks on the f-file.

In spite of this inauspicious start I hope that you will have many satisfying experiences of tournament chess. In this game you failed to organise your men into a team who could formulate a plan. Later you allowed yourself to to led astray by a mirage having no substance. For people in your situation I recommend reading *Simple Chess* by Michael Stean. Here is a quote from the publisher.

> Written by a young Grand Master, this introduction to chess strategy is aimed primarily at players for whom a game plan is utterly enigmatic. By isolating the basic elements and illustrating them through a selection of Master and Grand Master games, Simple Chess breaks down the mystique of strategy into plain, easy-to-understand ideas.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Your biggest strategic mistake is that you traded too many pieces in a Benoni structure. Black has less space and has several pieces that need to route through a limited number of squares (primarily d7, e5, and f6). By trading pieces you remove the burden for them.

# Answer
> 5 votes
As what @cleveland has mentioned, you traded way too many pieces in a Benoni structured opening. Especially when black bishop is on `e5` on move 19, your pieces are going to have a hard time defending your king, especially with your black bishop off the board, that `h2` square is a big weakness.

On move 28, when the pawn moved to `g4`, its nearly lost for white since you cant really move the bishop. Using your rook to pin that pawn to the king does not really help as the `h` pawn is coming next, so tactical blunder to lift your rook and let the black queen on the extremely dangerous `f4` square, as it controls threatens mate on the both the `h2`, `f1` and `c1` square on move 25, which later lead to your resign after `Qc1+`.

Tip: when playing long time control games like 90mins, *make sure* you get your opening theory right, or for the rest of your game the opponent will slowly crush you (if he doesnt blunder)

# Answer
> 2 votes
As usual people have not read the OP and started analyzing stuff. Let me try my luck. The lesson I think you can learn from this game -- and please do not take this lightly -- is to be patient, to curb the urge to do something, something drastic, something forceful. This unfortunately is the result of how chess games are presented in articles, books and videos. (They choose the most brilliant games with lots of action and glorify forcing tactical moves while brushing over the build-up moves.)

It is obvious that you did not know the opening and also missed rather easy continuations like when Rook comes to e file and piles up on e4. But again my point is not the details. As you said it is not even just the game moves but what you can learn. So, let me repeat you can learn to keep calm and hold on to your position. Let me give examples of where your moves shouted "I am moving this becasue I have to do something, I have to make a threat." Let's go back to after Ne5. Ok, Black has centralized a N but is your position that bad? No. Simply retreat your Bishop, say to c2. If Ng4 then Qg3 and there is no check on f2 while you pressure d6 now. Later your Rf3 idea and doubling. Why?! You know there is no real threat and after Rf8 everything backfires. Do you not know it? You do! It is just that urge to do something. Rh3. Why?! What are you thretening?! Nothing. You can see it but you play it anyway, why? Because of I must do something attitude.

Maybe ask yourself: If I keep the status quo, what is my opponent going to do anyway? What are my good point in my position? Let me keep them. Let me not move a piece that is already doing some job.

This if you take seriously can get you to a lot of places. On more practical side, I have made for myself a list of "When in doubt, \[do this!\]". You can do one for yourself. Some items from my list that would apply to this game are: when in doubt, play in the center (centralize your pieces. For example after Rd1 your pieces stand strong and central, except for the queen. maybe think about a new home for the queen. Also this would have avoided Rh3 idea.) When is doubt, develop your pieces. This prevents me from (often premature) adventures in the opening.

Hope this helps.

# Answer
> 1 votes
First of all: I'm not rated at all and would not consider myself as a good player, as I have no theoretical knowledge at all, but rather play for fun and by intuition (and I only play Blitz).

What I quickly realized in that game were 3 general points that belong together:

1. Overall board awareness! There are 64 squares and every single one of them matters, but I feel you were focused on a smaller slice of the board at times. Positioning is obviously super important, so be not only aware of the pieces but also of what squares are not occupied/protected and what your opponent can do with that in the long run. During mid game I was already worried about your backline, one smart rook or queen play and you cannot escape and in the end that's what happened. A simple (seemingly innocuous) pawn movement to h3 instead of the rather "random" rook movement could have saved you. Also compare how your opponents' pawns in the middle are utilized to both stop you and protect blacks' pieces - while your pawns in the middle are mostly useless. You should also look out which piece is blocking ways of others and if the position is worth it (early your queen blocks your pawn without justification, later same happens with your rook and pawn).
2. Trading pieces only based on their value (many mentioned this already). A trade is beneficial for you, when you end up having positional advantage. I will not repeat the answers of the other posters, just make sure you always trade for positional advantage! The pieces' value alone does not win games and is just an overall estimate, I've won games by checkmate where I was behind multiple big pieces and a well-positioned pawn can be way more valuable than a queen that cannot impact the board.
3. Individual moves that seem like you only moved a piece because you had to, which could indicate a lack of game plan. There should be no move without a proper reasoning (except you are in Zugzwang) and no matter in what situation you are, there should be an idea on how to either get out of danger or put pressure on your opponent. Have a strategy at hand and don't just move a piece because "the move is safe", because your opponent will most likely have this kind of game plan and thus be one step ahead. Playing reactive instead of proactive can be dangerous, because you are losing tempo! However, this does not mean you should not change your strategy mid-game if the situation requires or opportunities open up.

In my opinion, those 3 points incrementally add up slight disadvantages over time, which leads to a board state that is clearly in your opponents' favor, while on paper (based on mere piece value) you did not do anything wrong. I think all 3 points boil down to positioning, which essentially is all chess really is about.

# Answer
> 1 votes
"Do any of you see something more general which is not specific to this game that I could dig more into and improve?"

Yes, piece placement.

By that I mean what are good squares for my pieces and what are good squares for my opponents pieces. Can I frustrate my opponent getting her good squares? Can I get a harmonious placement for my pieces so that they support each other?

My first glance at the game told me as early as move 8 you had missed Black's simple and strong plan to fianchetto her Black squared bishop.

Unchallenged, this bishop can be a monster so as soon as Black played 7....g6 she signalled: my bishop is about to become dangerous!

You needed to admit your Black squared bishop was misplaced and redirect it to its better square c3 so I think instead of 8.e4 you would be better to try 8.B:d2 and follow up with B:c3 as soon as possible to counter Black's plan and swap off the monster.

If you successfully do this it will expose black square holes in your opponents position so then plan to exploit these with your queen.

Your pawn on d5 can have strength as it cramps Black somewhat but it does limit the mobility of you white square bishop: finding a good square for this piece may not be easy.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Here is how I play with White

```
[FEN ""]
1.Nf3

```

This limits Black's options.

You get decent positions every time.

Way less opening theory.

That means, more energy and focus for middlegame and endgame.

For example

```
[FEN ""]
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.O-O O-O

```

King is safe.

Now, 5.c2-c4 is more dynamic.

While 5.d2-d4 is more solid.

The g2-bishop is a key piece, so keep the h1-a8 diagonal open.

If you play 1.Nf3, learn the pawn structures, you can focus on middlegames and endgames and skip the opening trouble.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Coordinating pieces in the Benoni structure is much more difficult than a London/Mason. So, playing d4-d5 and entering unfamiliar difficult territory was the start. After that it was a gradual weakening of your position as you faced various threats.

Solution: Stay in familiar territory and study more to learn more of the grand range of things that can happen in chess games.

\[Event ""\] \[Site ""\] \[Date ""\] \[Round ""\] \[White ""\] \[Black ""\] \[Result "\*"\] \[ECO "A45"\]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 c5 3. d5 ( 3. e3)3... d6 4. c4 e6 ( 4... e5)5. Nc3 exd5 6. Nxd5 ( 6. cxd5)6... Nxd5 7. cxd5 g6 8. e4 ( 8. Qd2)8... Bg7 9. Qb3 ( 9. Qd2)9... O-O
2. Nf3 ( 10. Bd3 Re8 11. Ne2 )10... Re8 11. Bd3 f5 12. Ng5 ( 12. Nd2 fxe4 13. Nxe4 )12... fxe4 13. Nxe4 Bf5 14. f3 ( 14. Qxb7 Bxe4 15. Qxa8 Bxd5+ )14... Qc7 ( 14... b6)15. O-O Bxe4 16. fxe4 ( 16. Bxe4 Nd7 )16... Nd7 17. Rae1 Bd4+ ( 17... Ne5)18. Kh1 Ne5 19. Bxe5 Bxe5 20. Rf3 Qe7 21. Ref1 Rf8 22. Be2 ( 22. g3 Rxf3 23. Rxf3 Rf8 24. Rxf8+ Qxf8 25. Kg2 Bd4 26. Qc2 Qf6 27. b3 )22... Rxf3 ( 22... Qh4 23. Rxf8+ Rxf8 24. Rxf8+ Kxf8 25. Qf3+ Ke7 26. g3 )23. Rxf3 ( 23. Bxf3 Qh4 )23... Rb8 ( 23... Qh4 24. g3 Qxe4 )24. Rh3 ( 24. a4)24... Qg5 25. Qc2 Qf4 ( 25... b5)26. b3 Rf8 27. Qd1 ( 27. Qb1 Qd2 28. Bd3 Rf2 29. Bf1 Qxa2 )27... g5 ( 27... Qxe4)28. Bf3 g4 29. Rg3 h5 30. Qe2 Qc1+ *

---
Tags: strategy
---


title: Why struggle for a single pawn?

text:
# Question
Title: Why struggle for a single pawn?
I've seen many chess games, where after a certain point, one side maneuvers their pieces (like doubling the rooks) to target a single point. Most of the time it's a pawn on the wing and the other side tries to defend their pawn. But why struggle for a single pawn?

# Answer
As the old poem says:

> For want of a nail the shoe was lost.

> For want of a shoe the horse was lost.

> For want of a horse the rider was lost.

> For want of the rider the message was lost.

> For want of a message the battle was lost.

> For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.

> And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Exactly the same principle applies in chess. Usually the loss of the pawn results in the loss of the file, loss of control of the file allows the rooks to penetrate and the position soon collapses.
> 52 votes

# Answer
I'm not at all disagreeing with the existing answers - both sound. Indeed every pawn is a potential queen. However, one aspect of the question remaining is: why struggle for a pawn as opposed to a more decisive plan?

In the games that you are watching, if they are between capable and well-matched players, very often the game will be quite well balanced with neither side having a promising attack leading directly to checkmate. Launching such an attack in a position where it is not justified is more likely to lead to a worse position than an improvement - an unfounded attack is usually beaten off by a competent defender, leaving the attacker with a compromised position.

But a player has to try something to win and, in a fairly level position, the win of a pawn - even if not conclusive - may be the best plan available to get an advantage in the game. Even a small advantage is better than none!
> 34 votes

# Answer
Another point which has not been raised by the excellent answers above is that **pawns are easy to block**. A pawn can be blocked by just one piece in front of it, and it cannot take the piece which blocks it. Contrast this with any other piece, which can take a piece which blocks its movement (barring other circumstances such as a pin).

This property means that it is much easier to keep a pawn in place where it can be attacked and then taken.
> 12 votes

# Answer
Preceding answers and comments make many good points.

Why struggle for a single pawn?

The simple answer is: Chess games are mostly won by material advantage!

Generally being up a single pawn in an otherwise safe position is a clear advantage, often a winning advantage.

In such a situation a GM analyst might say: And the rest is technique!

Of course there are myriad situations where the extra pawn does not guarantee a win but the general rule is that material advantage counts.

This is seen at the highest level eg Bobby Fischer was happy to take the so-called "poisoned pawn" variation in the Sicilian and hang on to it even though White had an initiative.

He knew that he if could hold on to that humble pawn it would lead to increasing advantage as pieces were exchanged.

The player with the extra pawn also has the option of giving it back at some stage in exchange for some other advantage.

As the game progresses and piece exchanges occur the value of that extra pawn increases.
> 11 votes

# Answer
The answer by @Brian Towers is both beautiful and true, but not always true. It is perhaps true if you think of every pawn as a potential queen. However, in endings, especially in Rook endings, the textbooks will tell you not to be drawn into passive defence but to keep your pieces active, and counterattack. That being said, you may not have the choice. There may be no counterattack available that is strong enough. And even if you do have a choice, it may not be obvious which is the right choice. You may not have a workable defence available either. It then becomes a matter of style, which of two evils to endure.
> 7 votes

# Answer
You should think of pawns not as individual units but as a group acting as one unit. If one pawn is one "point" then the entire pawn formation is 8 "points". This actually makes pawns one of the most powerful units in the game. The pawns are your front line and do an excellent job of defending each other in diagonal lines. If your opponent takes one of your pawns then your front line has been split into two smaller pawn formations. This is a weaker line of defense because now you have a hole open between the two formations. Your opponent could place a rook or queen on the newly opened file and be able to threaten pieces behind your front line. So you are defending more than "just a pawn", you are defending the pawn structure as a whole.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Read Steinitz. Before him, people didn't even ponder about that, they went to the throat of each other with no further question asked and no quarters given. Steinitz had a breakthrough insight: You don't simply walk into Mordor. If you attack blindly a king hiding behind a position without weaknesses, with not more material than the defense will come up, you will fail miserably. (The defender will have at least the king, and that dude is as strong as a rook, I can show my own games.) Thus Steinitz became father of positional play. It's so much easier (i.e. takes less material and moves) to force weaknesses and gang up pawns, and only if the opponents stand has been weakened, you can throw him. (Yup, that was a Judo metaphor.)

Of course Tal would talk back to me but he's dead :-(

tl;dr: All depends on the position.
> 2 votes

# Answer
A pawn is a potential queen (or any other piece you prefer, except the king of course). The great world champion Jose Capablanca was noted for winning a pawn and nursing his advantage into a winning ending. Between skilled players where tactical errors costing more substantial material may be few, it is advantageous to try to gain a pawn to have these winning endgame chances. Of course, if the opportunity to gain a greater material advantage arises, that's the course you should take instead. Even gaining a positional advantage, such as doubling your rooks on an open file and penetrating into the enemy position as you mention, which could ultimately translate into a material one, is a desirable course of action.
> 1 votes

# Answer
That's like asking why volleyball players struggle to win a volley. Winning volleys twice in a row, or when you already have the serve, gets you a point. Winning volleys is how you win the game.

Similarly, winning two pawns, or winning one pawn and getting a positional advantage, wins the game. The fact that *just* winning a pawn doesn't win the game isn't irrelevant, just as the fact that *just* winning a volley doesn't get you a point is irrelevant. Why wouldn't being halfway to winning not be something to fight for?
> 1 votes

# Answer
It has likely to do with harmony.

Harmony defined as a collaboration between pieces and pawns towards a meaningful target.

A pawn can be a meaningful target, provided that you have enough control in the center and your forces are ready to defend your king in case of an attack.

Either you manage to take the pawn and your well coordinated forces can continue the attack.

Or your opponent has to place their pieces in a bad way to defend the pawn and then you switch your focus to a different area. Keep doing this until your opponent makes a mistake.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, pawns, defense
---


title: Tips for King-of-the-hill (KOTH)

text:
# Question
Title: Tips for King-of-the-hill (KOTH)
Related

*This question is about general tips, not just openings*

Is there any tips for this variant KOTH, which requires the player to bring the king to the center before the opponent, or by checkmating the opponent?

E.g. do not bring your king out too early and how to counter it if the opponent plays it

# Answer
> 2 votes
General tips for KOTH variant.

Take firm control of the center squares in the opening.

Do it by attacking the squares, but avoid placing pawns there.

Keep the center squares free of your pawns, so your king gets there later.

For example, play c2-c4 and thereby control the d5-square.

Play g3, Bg2, and control e4 and d5.

If you notice an early king march from your opponent, then go for an all out attack on that king and thereby win some material.

Do not go for an early king march yourself, castle early, then play standard chess.

Take control of the file that the opponent's king must pass to get to the center. For example, if opponent castles kingside, take control of the e-file with all heavy pieces. If possible, f-file and e-file control is strong.

Gradually increase your control in the center, then create a path for your king to enter, e.g. g1-f2-e3 and prepare your pieces so they can sac themselves to free the e4 or d4 squares.

Make sure you have ways to drive your opponent's king back. Break any path they try to create.

Keep most pieces on the board, go for a long middlegame.

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Cocking the gun tactical motif (preparing a discovered attack)
There is a tactical motif I call "cocking the gun" which I have never seen explicitly mentioned. It happens when you prepare a discovered attack. See the following board. Is there an official name for this tactical motif?

From a Lichess puzzle

```
[Event "Cocking the gun"]
[Date "2020.07.25"]
[Round "-"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5rk1/1p1q3p/p2pp1p1/2p5/4P1QP/2PP2b1/PP2Br2/2KR3R b - - 0 1"]

1... Rg2 2.Rdf1 Bf4+ 3.Rxf4 Rxg4

```

# Answer
In Dutch, the two attacking pieces involved in a discovered attack (or the two defending ones in a pin, which is basically the flip side of a discovered attack) are called 'kopstuk' and 'staartstuk', literally translated 'head piece' (the black bishop) and 'tail piece' (the black rook). Preparing a discovered attack like this is called 'staartstuk plaatsen', literally translated 'putting the tail piece in place'. I *think* it has been coined in the official Dutch method for teaching chess which has been used widely since the 1990's, so many younger and middle-aged players here know the term.

I'm not sure if there's even a well-established (let alone official) English terminology for the 'tail piece'. Wikipedia doesn't mention it. Perhaps 'hidden piece' makes sense? Then you'd be 'putting the hidden piece in place', but as you can see, this is far from being official. I like your own phrase better.
> 1 votes

# Answer
This is called a **battery**.

Hooper & Whyld's *The Oxford Companion to Chess* says "**battery**" is "a problem term for one of the two kinds of ambush: a line-piece would command a line if another man of the same colour were moved off that line. Discovered checks arise from this kind of ambush. ... Players occasionally use the word 'battery' to describe doubled or tripled line-pieces; \[problem\] composers rarely use the word in this sense."

That book says that **ambush** is a term for a situation where a line-piece would command a line if another man \[of no matter which colour\] were moved off that line.

Sometimes these terms are used: **rear piece** for the piece whose attack line gets opened/discovered, and **front piece/unit** for the one that moves to open this line.

Problemists don't need the word **battery** to cover situations where the two pieces defend each other: they have other terms such as Turton doubling and Zepler doubling, depending on how the pieces move once they are on the same line.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tactics, terminology
---


# Question
Title: can players continue the game on mutual agreement in case of mobile ringing and arbiter noticing
In a situation where a mobile phone rings in the middle of the game should the offender's opponent call the arbiter and claim the win.
If claiming is not needed and if the arbiter decides to mark the game as a loss for the offender is it possible to continue the game based on mutual agreement between the players or is the arbiter decision final?

# Answer
> 3 votes
There are two main sections in the FIDE Laws of Chess: **BASIC RULES OF PLAY**, which describes the basic rules of the game which pretty much apply regardless of whether the game is played as part of a formal competition or not, and **COMPETITION RULES**, which describes additional formal rules for FIDE controller competitions.

The word "arbiter" appears only once in the BASIC RULES OF PLAY and I almost think that's a mistake. Arbiters only have a role to play in formal competitions. There are more than 60 occurrences of "arbiter" in the seven articles which comprise the COMPETITION RULES.

Long story short: the arbiter decides what happens in the formal competition. You can decide what happens outside the competition.

So:

> is it possible to continue the game based on mutual agreement between the players or is the arbiter decision final?

As regards the competition, the arbiter's word is final and the result gets recorded as a loss for the player whose phone rang. As regards completing the game, most tournaments will have an analysis area. You and your opponent are perfectly free to go there, set your game up and continue.

This is a principle which predates FIDE by at least 1900 years.

# Answer
> 2 votes
According to **Article 12.3 b** of FIDE Handbook of Laws Of Chess:

> Without the permission of the arbiter a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off. If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game.

I think this will answer your question.

---

> is it possible to continue the game based on mutual agreement between the players?

Rules are rules. They are the same for everyone so there's no possibility of mutual agreement between players. Otherwise, this would lead to inequalities.

---

> In a situation where a mobile phone rings in the middle of the game should the offender's opponent call the arbiter and claim the win.

Well, that's the only option left out there. He/She cannot claim the win on their own. They need to call out the Arbiter and let him/her handle the situation.

---

**Example/Similar case:**

The latest similar case which I could find on the internet was Nigel Short vs Lorenzo Candian. In their match, Lorenzo was winning his game against Nigel but he lost when his phone rang. Here's a video which you can take a look at to know more about it.

---
Tags: rules, fide, tournament, etiquette, arbiters
---


# Question
Title: What are the origins of Hand & Brain chess?
I was recently leafing through Pritchard's *Encyclopedia of Chess Variants* when I noticed that the variant Hand and Brain which has recently become popular, in which one player states the piece to the moved ('Brain') and his partner then decides the move with that piece ('Hand'), is missing.

It would be in Chapter 34 of the 2007 edition following Tandem/Alternation Chess, since Hand & Brain is the only other variant which uses 1 standard board, standard pieces, and standard rules, but permits team play.

**What are the origins of Hand & Brain chess?** I'm interested to know what the earliest recorded mentions of the variant are by this name and also by any older historical name.

N.B. The earliest mention I can find is on Alexandra Kosteniuk's blog dating to February 2013: http://www.chessblog.com/2013/02/. The name and rules already seem to tie up exactly with the variant we recognize today, suggesting that the variant was at least somewhat known by then.

# Answer
A lot of online sources and videos online were from 2018-2021, as it was very popular then, so it is very tricky to find anything

Some say hand and brain chess was inspired in really fun videos from Eric Hansen, Daniel Rensch and Anna Rudolf, but this it isn't that old here, so I conclude that Alexandra Kosteniuk's blog is probably the earliest mention of Hand and Brain chess.

I have searched for the exact phrase "hand and brain chess" and "hand and brain", but all 3950 of the results on google were quite recent, oldest found is the below link (2016)

(Still looking at the moment)

Feb 2016 mentioning of Hand and Brain chess

Reddit question of the origins

There *is* a possibility that Hand and brain chess is somehow related to Team chess, where the control over pieces on the board are shared among the teammates who are not allowed to communicate with each other during the play other than via valid moves.

Another possibilty, but unlikely, is Smess chess, where arrows on the board indicate where pieces should move. (This variant uses fairy pieces and a 8x7 board)
> 1 votes

# Answer
Looks like the idea is from dice chess.

There are a lot of variations to this like using a 6-sided dice where pawn=1, knight=2, bishop=3, rook=4, queen=5, king=6. Or a 10-sided dice as in the chess equalizer. It can be using a single die or 2 dice where if the result is 1 or 6 the player can play either a pawn or a king.

In `Hand and Brain` the brain is another player but in dice chess the brain is the rolling of a die or dice.

Here are some links of chess with dice from chessvariant.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: history, chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Why are world-class engines playing like this?
I was reading about the Lc0 engine and its evolution. Then took a glimpse at the games between Lc0 and the notorious Stockfish. I am not a professional or anything remotely close, but this particular game seems very odd to me. According to chess.com:

> The Lc0 engine got off to a fast start in the bonus games, beating the reigning Computer Chess Champion Stockfish despite Lc0 starting down a pawn in the odds-chess position. In typical Leela style, the engine underpromoted to a rook to drive the win home.

```
[FEN "CCCC 1: Rapid Rumble (15|5) Bonus Games"]
[Date "2018.10.03"]
[White "Lc0 17.11089"]
[Black "Stockfish 220818"]
[Time "09:33:10"]
[TimeControl "900+5"]

1. f4 Nh6 2. f5 Nxf5 3. Nf3 Nh6 4. Ng1 Ng8 5. e4 e6 6. Nc3 d5 7. d4 Bb4 8. e5
Qh4+ 9. g3 Qd8 10. a3 Bf8 11. Be3 Ne7 12. Nf3 Nf5 13. Bg5 Be7 14. Bxe7 Nxe7 15.
Bd3 h6 16. b4 b6 17. O-O O-O 18. Ne2 c6 19. a4 c5 20. c3 Nbc6 21. Qd2 Bd7 22.
Rae1 Rc8 23. b5 Na5 24. Nf4 cxd4 25. cxd4 Qc7 26. Rc1 Qd8 27. Rxc8 Qxc8 28. Nh5
Nc4 29. Qf4 Ng6 30. Nf6+ Kh8 31. Qc1 Na5 32. Qd2 Nc4 33. Qc1 Na5 34. Bxg6 Qxc1
35. Rxc1 gxf6 36. Bh5 Nc4 37. exf6 Kg8 38. Ne5 Nxe5 39. dxe5 Rc8 40. Rxc8+ Bxc8
41. Be2 d4 42. Bf3 h5 43. Bxh5 Bb7 44. Kf2 Be4 45. Ke1 d3 46. Kd2 Kf8 47. Ke3
Bh7 48. Bd1 Ke8 49. g4 Kd8 50. Kd2 Ke8 51. Ke3 Kf8 52. Kf3 Ke8 53. Kf2 Kd7 54.
Ke3 Kc7 55. h4 Kc8 56. h5 Kd7 57. Kf3 Ke8 58. Kf2 Kf8 59. Ke3 Kg8 60. Kf4 Kh8
61. Kf3 Bg8 62. Ke4 Bh7+ 63. Kf4 Kg8 64. Ke3 Kf8 65. Kf2 Be4 66. Ke3 Bh7 67. Bb3
Kg8 68. Bc4 d2 69. Kxd2 Be4 70. Be2 Bb7 71. g5 Be4 72. Bd1 Kh8 73. Kc3 Kg8 74.
Be2 Bf5 75. Kd2 Bb1 76. Bd1 Kf8 77. Kc3 Ke8 78. Kb2 Bh7 79. Kc3 Be4 80. Kd2 Bf5
81. Ke3 Bb1 82. Kf3 Kf8 83. Ke3 Ke8 84. Kd4 Kf8 85. Kc3 Bh7 86. Be2 Kg8 87. Bg4
Be4 88. Bd1 Kh8 89. Kd2 Bh7 90. Bg4 Kg8 91. Bd1 Kf8 92. Bb3 Ke8 93. Bc4 Kd7 94.
Be2 Ke8 95. Kc3 Kf8 96. Bd1 Bb1 97. Bg4 Be4 98. Kd2 Kg8 99. g6 fxg6 100. Bxe6+
Kf8 101. h6 g5 102. Ke3 Bg6 103. Bd5 g4 104. Kf4 g3 105. Kxg3 Ke8 106. e6 Kd8
107. Kf4 a6 108. bxa6 Be8 109. a7 Kc7 110. a8=Q Kd6 111. h7 Kc5 112. h8=R Bd7
113. Ke5 Kb4 114. Rh3 Bxa4 115. Kd4 Bd1 116. Bc6 Bb3 117. f7 b5 118. f8=Q# (118.
f8=B#) 1-0

```

Ok, I can understand that Lc0 gives a pawn in advance —maybe to show off its superiority, but the rest of the game is full of unbelievably stupid moves. And ironically, those amateur moves are coming from both sides. For example, even for someone like me, `9. g3 Qd8` is hard to believe.

I also can understand that in rapid games, stupid moves are likely to happen. But these are chess engines who can find almost perfect moves in a fraction of second (well, according to my personal experience with Stockfish). So time limit cannot be such a heavy barrier. Then why are they playing dumb like this? Is it intentional or something?

# Answer
This is a real game, not a joke, and Stockfish got outplayed. You only quote one example so we'll focus on that, but first, note that the first four moves - 1. f4 Nh6 2. f5 Nxf5 3. Nf3 Nh6 4. Ng1 Nh8 - was part of the "opening book". In other words, the engines were forced to play those moves. Leela isn't giving away a pawn for free to show her superiority, she was given a pawn-down handicap position. Left to her own devices, Leela will never play 1. f4.

Secondly, what exactly happened on 9. g3 Qd8? Well, this quote is revealing:

> But these are chess engines who can find almost perfect moves in a fraction of second (well, according to my personal experience with Stockfish). So time limit cannot be such a heavy barrier.

Engines can and do make mistakes! Like humans, their first impressions can be wrong, and they might change their mind as they think longer. Check out this question. If you look at the games in that question, engines can be just as blind as humans. Sure, the refutations are likely too deep for a human to spot (although it's possible if you know there's "something" in the position, see example), but another engine can.

In this case Stockfish was seduced by the apparent forced win of material after 8...Qh4+. It sees that 8...Qh4+ 9. g3 Qe4+ wins the h1-rook, so it thinks that White's best response is 9. Ke2, which is obviously bad news for White. In fact even today with a much more powerful Stockfish, Lichess Stockfish at depth 28 is still giving 8...Qh4+ as the best move, and predicts 9. Ke2.

But then if you execute 8...Qh4+, Stockfish suddenly realizes that 9. g3 is entirely playable. That's because 9. g3 Qe4+ 10. Kf2 Qxh1 11. h3 traps the Queen. It's not obvious how, but it does - 11. h3 Bxc3 12. bxc3 Qe4 12. Nf3 (threatening Bd3) Qg6 (intending to meet Bd3 with ...f5) 13. Nh4 and the Queen is trapped.

How can an engine as strong as Stockfish miss this Queen trap? It's got to do with pruning. Some moves an engine simply doesn't consider very seriously when it first looks at a position. Technically, the evaluation function says that White's position has worsened dramatically,\* so White will never be crazy enough to play 9. g3, so the engine should prune 9. g3 ("not look further" - see alpha-beta pruning). Stockfish will still look at the move eventually, but only after searching the main moves to greater depth. Note this is not a bad thing - for moves like 9...Qxh2?? there's no hidden tactical motif that justifies looking further, so pruning 9...Qxh2 is correct.

And this is what happened. I left Lichess running as I was writing this answer, and at depth 29 Stockfish's principal move changed to 8...Ne7 with a corresponding fall in eval; 8...Qh4+ is no longer one of its three principal moves either.

If you are interested in this you might also want to check out Anatomy of a Blunder by GM Matthew Sadler.

\*Keep in mind that the evaluation function produces an evaluation of the position *without searching*. Without searching, the position after 10...Qxh1 looks awesome for Black, since Black is up a rook, the Queen is not trapped, is generating threats, and White is unable to castle. It's only upon searching a few ply further that the engine discovers that White wins the Queen.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Basically, the first four moves were implemented to start a game without the f2 pawn, i.e., with an imposed handicap. The game starts at move 5 with a French Defense set-up for Black. I'm surprised that Lc0 can win against Stockfish with a pawn down. I would probably have chosen to play `e5` than `e6`, with the idea to install a Bishop in `c5` and try to take advantage of the open `g1-a7` diagonal.

I was also intrigued by some of the positions and their **seemingly dumb moves**, but some of them are not that dumb!

## You mentioned a first puzzling moment after `9.g3`

Lc0 has a pawn down and Stockfish plays to win with `Qd8`! By taking in `h1` Stockfish could be even worst. Then, we may question the `Qd8-h4-d8` sequence that has the advantage of weakening the kingside but loses two tempi. Reacting by `c5` instead of `Qh4` was probably more natural.

```
[FEN "rnb1k1nr/ppp2ppp/4p3/3pP3/1b1P3q/2N3P1/PPP4P/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 0 1"]
[title "Position after 9. g3"]

9... Qd8! {was played and Lc0 has a pawn down and Stockfish plays to win with Qd8!} (9... Qe4? {is the obvious move but} 10.Kf2 Qxh1 (10...Bxc3 11.bxc3 Qxh1 12.h3!! is a transposition) 11.h3!! 11...Bxc3 12.bxc3 Qe4 13.Nf3! {White can maybe play for a win here because I don't see how the Queen escapes!} (13.Bd3 Qh1 14.Bf1=))

```

## The second one is after the massive exchanges `41.Be2`

White has winning chances in this endgame and Stockfish tries to find some counterplay by playing `41... d4`. Assume Black waits and plays `Bb7-Ba8` without playing d4. Then, the winning plan for White is to bring the King to h5 to collect the h6 pawn.

```
[FEN "2b3k1/p4p2/1p2pP1p/1P1pP2B/P7/6P1/7P/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
[title "Position after 40... Bxc8"]

1.Be2! d4 (1...Bb7 2. Kf2 Ba8 3.Kf3 Bb7 4.Kg4 Ba8 5.Kh5 Kh7 6.Bd3 Kg8 7.Kxh6+-)

```

---

Update. There are still some positions where like @polfosol I can't understand Lc0 moves! For instance, after `78... Bh7`, the move `79.Kc3` seems indeed quite "dumb"! After `79.Bc2!` the win is very easy (at least for a human ;-).

```
[FEN "4k3/p4p1b/1p2pP2/1P2P1PP/P7/8/1K6/3B4 b - - 0 1"]
[title "Position after 78... Bh7"]

```
> 9 votes

# Answer
Games between engines often have absurd finishes, particularly when one side is material ahead. It has not been programmed to look for the shortest win, and so plays more or less any move that is still winning. I think sometimes it will give away some of its excess material to reach a position that is in its tablebase. Games between two computers are often quite ridiculous after one side obtains a winning advantage and your example is typical.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, computer-chess
---