# Question
Title: How to avoid an overly cluttered board in the opening?
As a beginner playing against other beginners, I find that around moves 8-10 the centre of the board gets quite cluttered. I have a hard time finding good places to put my pieces and improve my position, they get in one another's way, and I often find my opponent threatening my pieces with mere pawns, forcing me into awkward moves I don't want to make.

I realise that part of this comes down to choice of opening, and perhaps I haven't read enough and played enough to get a better sense for which openings/defences lead to more open or closed games. I know there are literally hundreds of questions about openings for beginners (e.g. here, here, here, or here), however I'm still not sure which general features of openings tend to lead to more or less cluttered boards.

That said, what I'd really like to know is this: is a cluttered board, or a feeling of being cramped also a sign I am trying to develop too many pieces too quickly, or that I am being too hesitant to exchange pawns and pieces in the opening, or even just of a lack of imagination on my part, or anything else along these lines?

This happens both when I play with white and black. Typically with white I play e4, with black I'm less settled, though I favour ...e5.

Thanks in advance for any answers.

edit: Here is a sample opening. It's perhaps not wholly representative that there are *no* exchanges, but it's not surprising either. Beware: beginners playing here

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 c5 3. Nc3 a6 4. b3 Nc6 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. d3 d6 7. O-O Bd7 8. Be3 Be7

```

# Answer
> I find that around moves 8-10 the centre of the board gets quite cluttered.

Typically (exceptions occur) around moves 8-10 you should have completed your development: you should have moved all or most minor pieces (i.e. ca 4-6 moves), should have moved a few pawns to occupy the center and to make space for developing the bishops (ca. 3-5 moves) and have castled (one move).

Yes, pieces and pawns tend to "clutter" in the center because it is an important part of the board and if you control the center you often have an advantage. This cluttering is not a bad thing and should affect both players equally.

> I have a hard time finding good places to put my pieces and improve my position, they get in one another's way, and I often find my opponent threatening my pieces with mere pawns, forcing me into awkward moves I don't want to make.

Because there is so much going on in the center, there are often tactics available, particularly in more open positions. So **studying tactics** is highly recommended for a beginner (and also advanced) player. Closed positions tend to be quieter and are better if you like slow, maneuvering kind of games.

In either case, if you have completed development, (which you should around move 8-10), it is time for the middlegame and you should come up with a plan on how to proceed and also consider the plans of your opponent and if necessary prevent them. Finding plans is not something easy to learn and requires time and experience. I would recommend to start with analyzing the position and to check:

* Are any pieces (mine or opponent) attacked?
* Are there obvious tactics available?
* Which pieces are well placed (lots of space to move around and attack something) and which not (little space to move and don't attack anything)?
* Is the king safe? Typically with many pieces on the board you want it behind pawns on either side after castling.
* Are there any weaknesses in the position such as isolated pawns?
* Who owns the center?
* Are there open or half-open files which are occupied or can be occupied by rooks?
* Is the position open or rather closed? Who would benefit from changing it?

Check all of these items for both sides (you and your opponent). Based on the outcome of this evaluation you should come up with a plan. I ordered the questions in order of importance (exceptions occur), e.g. usually you want to deal with attacked pieces (if you lose/win material) first, before thinking of anything else.

> I realise that part of this comes down to choice of opening, and perhaps I haven't read enough and played enough to get a better sense for which openings/defences lead to more open or closed games is a cluttered board, or a feeling of being cramped also a sign I am trying to develop too many pieces too quickly, or that I am being too hesitant to exchange pawns and pieces in the opening, or even just of a lack of imagination on my part, or anything else along these lines?

I don't think your problem is really related to open/closed positions but rather to a lack of experience of what is possible and knowledge of tactical motives.

For a beginner I would not recommend to worry to much about concrete openings and to study these. Instead I would play openings from general opening principles (occupy the center, develop pieces, ...) and focus on tactics and learning other themes like good bishop/bad bishop, open files (and what to do with them), undermining a closed center, etc.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Regarding the example.In principle this is a very normal position and I would not call it cluttered. Two points regarding white's opening play:

* The move 4. b3 only makes sense if you want to develop your bishop to b2 (or to a3). The way you played it, b3 in combination with d3, you limit your bishop on c4 (which in fact would be lost if black played b5) and also you weaken the dark squares on the queenside (because there are no pawns on dark squares anymore).
* Developing the bishop to c4 is often not a good idea if black has a pawn on e6. First of all the bishop has not much to attack there and second it invites black to play d5 or b5 (which black wants to play anyway), attacking the bishop a tempo. If you want to play such closed Sicilian structures, put that bishop on e2 or g2.

Ignoring for a moment that white is about to lose the c4 bishop, typical plans in positions like this (closed Sicilian):

Black will want to play on the queenside or in the center gaining space with moves like b5 or d5. White can consider making this difficult by playing a4.

White could think of playing on the kingside, particularly if black decides to castle short. Pushing pawns f4, g4, ... trying to mate the black king in the end could be a plan. Often this is safer to do if the center is fixed and not open.
> 1 votes

# Answer
My first chess book was *How to Think Ahead in Chess* by I. A. Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld. It was truly an amazing book because it focused on a simple opening with simple ideas. You knew where the pieces belonged. You knew the attack plan. This one book took me directly to USCF 1600s. It's out of print but it is worth gold if you can buy an used copy. FYI, it deals with the Stonewall Attack as White.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, center
---


title: Seconds of Magnus Carlsen

text:
# Question
Title: Seconds of Magnus Carlsen
Has it been revealed who helped Magnus Carlsen in preparing and during the World Chess Championship against Karjakin?

# Answer
> 10 votes
So far, following seconds have been revealed (NRK, ChessBase):

Another surprise is that GM Jon Ludvig Hammer was *not* part of Carlsen's team for this match, while he was for WCC 2013 and WCC 2014. Instead, he chose to do commentary work for VG and Chess.com.

---
Tags: world-championship, carlsen, preparation
---


# Question
Title: How computers have changed the way humans play chess
A few years ago Vishy Anand mentioned in an interview that computers had changed the way humans play chess. Obviously computers help a lot in opening preparation, but what other concrete examples are there?

1. Is there a certain opening line or endgame whose evaluation has changed a lot due to computer analysis?
2. Have new principles or strategies been found thanks to computers?
3. Are grandmaster specifically training to play computer moves instead of relying on traditional principles?

# Answer
> 25 votes
1. Computers allowed the creation of endgame tables, which allow the user to know with 100% certainty if a position can be won, and how to do it. Currently all positions containing 7 or fewer pieces are 100% known. I am unaware of any opening line busted by computers.
2. Not that I know of, but computers do find answers to some hard questions. So while computers don't change the principles, they can surely change the evaluation of specific positions. For example, it is common for computers to find flaws in pre-computer chess books, even books held in high regard.
3. No. Grandmasters use computers as a training aid, however.

# Answer
> 17 votes
Anand is absolutely right. Computers have revolutionized the way we play chess, think about chess and prepare.

Tony Ennis mentions tablebases. That is just the tip of the iceberg. Computers have infiltrated almost every aspect of the game. The only place they're banned is when we sit down to play over the board (and perhaps on some online platforms).

At the risk of losing half the population let me make an analogy with the game of cricket. Actually Svidler, Anand, the rest of the population of India and the rest of the Commonwealth, for that matter, will understand. Computer tracking technology has revolutionized cricket and in particular the LBW law. As a result of the technology umpires now interpret the law differently, because computer technology has shown them that balls which hit the batter when he is well down the pitch would have hit the wicket, spin bowlers have a new lease of life and greater opportunities, and batters have to play spin much more carefully and skillfully than they did 20 or 30 years ago. The mindset and the way the game is played has changed.

Putting opening preparation and endgames with 7 or fewer pieces to one side, no serious book involving analysis can be published and succeed without at the very least computer checking the lines. Certain authors, like GM John Nunn, have made particularly skillful use of computers both in his endgame books and books containing analysis of old games.

But, like the computer and video technology in cricket, computers have changed the way we think about chess. We see the calm computer assessment in what looks like a horrendously risky position and realize that, yes, that apparently unsound move is playable. We realize that endgame can be drawn.

I think all the top players have learnt this to some extent but the doyen for me is Karjakin. Time and time again he over stretches and reaches positions which have the fans and expert commentators saying that he has gone too far and is going to lose (or his opponent outplays him in the middlegame) only for him to find a way to thread the needle through to a draw. This belief that apparently indefensible positions can often be defended, often in contradiction to established principles, is a mind-opening that has been brought about by computers and their use in study.

To a lesser extent I think this also happens with attacking moves. Very occasionally in one of the top games you will hear the expert commentators saying something like "Well, the computer is pointing out a fantastic line here. It involves a very unlikely piece sacrifice 3 moves into the combination. He is thinking a long time here. Will he see it? It is a computer move, not a human move" and then a few minutes later "OMG! He's played it!"

On the preparation front it is probably worth mentioning the democraticizing effect of computers. There is now a vast amount of chess knowledge which is available online which 30 years ago was only available if you subscribed to Informator and 40 years ago to Shakmatny Bulletin.

Above a certain level you can also find a lot of your opponents' games in online databases like chess-db. You can download them and quickly scan through them on your computer and hopefully identify lines you can investigate further with a view to playing against them. Even as recently as 10 years ago you mostly had to rely on your personal database of games you had played previously against them or that from co-operating friends.

Are players specifically trying to play "computer" moves? No, they are trying to play the best moves whether they accord with standard principles or not. I think this predates computers. One of the best books on this subject is John Watson's "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch" published in 1998. This makes it clear that top players have not been bound by dogmatic principles for quite some time. Computers are just the latest, most powerful tool to aid the human mind in finding chess "truth".

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


# Question
Title: FIDE norm chance expectation calculation question
What is the expected probability that someone rated 2150 will have a performance rating of 2450 over a 9 round tournament and earn an IM norm?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Given the new requirements, I tried to do a calculation. I couldn't find one on the internet suitable for this task, but this one suggests that for *one game* between a 2150 and a 2450 player, the following probabilities hold (from the standpoint of the weaker player):

```
win   4.5%
loss 75.1%
draw 20.4%

```

To get a score of 4.5 or more, which is needed to score a TPR of at least 2450, the following results work:

```
5 or more wins              (0.0023%)
4 wins, and 1 or more draws (0.0434%)
3 wins, and 3 or more draws (0.0842%)
2 wins, and 5 or more draws (0.0490%)
1 win,  and 7 or more draws (0.0045%)
            9 draws         (0.0001%)
-------------------------------------
                             0.1835%

```

(you need some combinatorics to get the percentages)

So he will succeed once every 545 tournaments, on average.

~~It will depend on the strength of the opposition. To take two extremes: if your opponents all have a rating of 1000, you'll always win but never be able to get a TPR of 2450 (9/9 gives a TPR of +700). Conversely, if you're playing nine Stockfishes/Houdinis, rated 3300, you'll score 0/9 but that would give you a TPR of 2600. So the probability you're looking for can be 0%, 100% and everything in between.~~

---
Tags: rating, performance
---


# Question
Title: What is the name of chess format in which one player has only pawns, no king?
I remember watching some games on youtube in this weird format but forgot what it's called. One player has only pawns (lots of them. no other pieces, not even king) and has to achieve mate. Other player has to capture all of opponent's pawns to win the game.

# Answer
> 8 votes
It is either Horde or the very similar Dunsany's chess: 32 pawns against the regular chess army.

---
Tags: chess-variants, online-chess
---


title: software for a survey of chess openings

text:
# Question
Title: software for a survey of chess openings
Is there any a free software or free pgn files that presents a survey of all openings and their variations (the deeper the best) similar to those found in chess opening references like MCO or ECO ? I just want to explore and analyze the resulting moves and positions by myself. I am not asking for games but rather just openings and their variations in a software version instead of normal books.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think you are looking for my Encyclopaedia of Chess Opening iOS app.

This app provides you the ECO openings, annoated games for each opening and lots of variation. There is an engine embedded for you to explore lines and positions.

However, this is **not** a free app but it costs less than a McDonald BigMac. Please consider if you are interested.

# Answer
> 1 votes
What do you call an opening? ECO would not be very deep, only a couple of moves usually.

On the other hand, if you get really deep, the number of variations will increase dramatically and you won't have time to study each and every variant down to move 20 or so.

I'd suggest to find out what kind of opening s you like (closed/positional, open/tactical, popular, off-beat, ...) and thereby limit your choices. Use a regular database and study how grandmasters handle the opening of your choice.

---
Tags: opening, software, database, pgn
---


# Question
Title: Chess puzzles in newspapers and magazines which offer a prize
I like chess puzzles, and particularly like those for which there is a prize.

*The Times*, *Sunday Times* and *Spectator* provide weekly puzzles (I'm based in the UK). These puzzles are available online as well as printed. I can usually answer two of these and, in good week, all three.

I'd like to know of other sources of chess puzzles in the press or on the web which offer a modest reward. Do you know of any?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The only one I am aware of is chesspuzzles.com offering a prize drawing for:

* Mate in 1 problem: *Chess Rules for Students* (RRP $4.50)
* Mate in 2 problem: *Checkmate! Ideas for Students* (RRP $5.00)
* Mate in 3 problem: *Chess Tactics for Students* (RRP $16.00, but on sales for $12.80 now)

All prizes written by John Bain. The latest prize drawing was week ending Saturday 16-December-2016, at the time of answering this post.

---
Tags: puzzles
---


# Question
Title: Strange(?) opening by computer (beginner level)
Below is the beginning of a game I played against the 8 year old Magnus Carlsen (yes, I'm a beginner). I'm white.

My opening moves are similar to that of a Spanish opening (but not quite), but I don't understand black's moves here. As far as I can see, there are only negatives (except the queen is threatening b2 if the white bishop is moved). Does this opening have any pros? The reason why I'm asking is that I've noticed that "Magnus" often plays moves that are good if played against a worse player, but rarely moves that are just plain bad (except some major blunders). I win probably 75% of the time against 8 year old Magnus, thus we're almost at the same level.

As far as I know, the most important principle during the first phase of the game is:

* Control the center
* Activate the pieces
* Perform a castling move

My question is: Does black's opening here have any advantages against a beginner or is it simply bad? Is black just "hoping" white will forget about the queen and move the bishop (or some other blunder I'm not seeing)? Am I doing something bad in this opening? What would a be a good next move for white?

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. Bc4 c5 3. d3 Nh6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. O-O a5

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
Well, to be honest, it's not a very good opening by either of the players.
While you haven't made any real mistakes, there were chances for black to seize the initiative.

In The French defence, you hardly see black taking the initiative. Black always hopes to sit tightly and looks for counter attack, usually on the queenside. i am not a huge fan of your move (2.Bc4)(Better was 2.d4). The bishop has no future on c4. Well, yes it controls the d5 square but Black could simply have moved (3..d5) instead of that horrible (3..Nh6) and your bishop would have moved twice in the opening 5 moves. **Not a good sign**. Black's opening here is almost terrible. White gains a substantial advantage and with logical play should win this game without much trouble.

A good move at this stage would be 7.Bxh6 which doubles up black's pawn on the h file and a future Qc1 would mean that the pawn would always be upon attack by enemy forces.

# Answer
> 2 votes
> "Magnus" often plays moves that are good if played against a worse player... Does black's opening here have any advantages against a beginner or is it simply bad? Is black just "hoping" white will forget about the queen and move the bishop (or some other blunder I'm not seeing)?

I would not think in terms of: *moves that are good against beginners*, etc Either a move is good or it is not, the opponent does not matter. OK, if you play against a very beginner it is enough to attack something and it will likely not be noticed.

Other than that for players that are rated much below you, a good strategy is to keep the positions complicated with many pieces on the board. And make (universally) good moves.

> Am I doing something bad in this opening?

Nothing serious. You develop your pieces naturally, but it seems to me that you basically ignore what black is doing.

For instance black's 1.... e6 normally indicates that he wants to follow it up with d5 attacking the center this way (French defense). Putting a bishop on c4 is not a good idea as it will have to move after d5 and also if black does not play d5 it, the bishop does not attack much on the a2-g8 diagonal.

Second point you should have paid attention is when Magnus played Nh6. Capturing, Bxh6 should at least be considered as it weakens black's kingside pawn structure.

> What would a be a good next move for white?

Not a single move, but a few plans:

* give the white bishop on c4 some escape square on a2 in case it gets attacked by pawns; i.e. play either a3 or a4.
* free the dark squared bishop by protecting the pawn on b2 with Rb1
* capture, Bxh6 to weaken the kingside (this would be even stronger after black castles kingside)
* kingside pawn attack playing f4 (after the knight made space), h3, g4 ... (this also makes best sense after black castles kingside)
* play on the light squares on the queenside which black has weakened; can think of later putting a knight or two at b5, etc (but watch out, immediate Nb5 loses a piece after d5)

---
Tags: opening, engines, opening-traps
---


# Question
Title: Did Stein really ridicule Fischer for grabbing the poisoned pawn in the Najdorf Sicilian?
I remember reading somewhere that Leonid Stein (one of the top players at that time) has ridiculed Bobby Fischer for grabbing the poisoned pawn in the Najdorf Sicilian during the Spassky-Fischer match in 1972. I wonder if that is really true. Perhaps it was a journalist's way of attracting readers' attention. Can anyone point me to a source of the citation?

# Answer
Although it is hard to prove a negative, I don't believe that Stein ridiculed Fischer for taking the poisoned pawn. My evidence is:

1. An analysis on Chess.com of game 11 claims to source commentary of Stein's and others from *Fischer-Spassky 1972 From a Soviet Point of View*. Although I cannot find the original source, the commentary quoted on Chess.com is fair and balanced. In fact, 8...Qxb2 doesn't even receive a dubious mark
2. Googling leonid stein ridicule picks up no relevant articles on the first page
3. According to the *Chessmaster* database, Stein's co-comentators Bronstein and Korchnoi had grabbed the poisoned pawn before. I don't think that Stein would have been critical of a move that other top players had played before in a well analysed opening
> 3 votes

---
Tags: fischer, najdorf
---


# Question
Title: How do you implement Alpha-Beta search when you can only compare 2 positions to each other?
In their paper about DeepChess, http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~wolf/papers/deepchess.pdf, David et al show a cool way to train a net to play chess. I've trained my net to some degree of success and I want to test how well it performs in play. The neural net can only compare 2 positions to each other - it has no static evaluation function. The paper briefly talks about Alpha-Beta search for this net. I'm trying to write the pseudo-code for this algorithm, and would appreciate any help:

```
function alphabeta(node, depth, α, β, maximizingPlayer)
      if depth = 0 or node is a terminal node
          return eval(node, α, β, maximizingPlayer)
      if maximizingPlayer
          v := -∞
          for each child of node
              α := alphabeta(child, depth – 1, α, β, FALSE)
              if net(β, α) == β //beta is the winner
                  break (*β cut-off *)
          return α
      else
          v := ∞
          for each child of node
              β := alphabeta(child, depth – 1, α, β, TRUE)
              if net(β, α) == α //alpha is the winner
                  break (* α cut-off *)
          return β

function eval(node, depth, α, β, maximizingPlayer)
    if maximizingPlayer and net(node,α) == α //alpha is the winner
         α = node
    if not maximizingPlayer and net(node,β) == β //beta is the winner
         β = node

```

Am I on the right track? Is this totally wrong? I know that I haven't account for no legal moves, which means I have to return negative infinity, and I'm also not sure how to initiate the call... Any help would be appreicated!

# Answer
This looks right to me, but there are two big caveats, one technical nitpickery in your pseudocode and one much deeper. The nitpickery is that your `net()` function shouldn't return a *position* because comparing positions is expensive; instead it should return something along the lines of 'left is better' or 'right is better' (i.e., a boolean) and your conditionals should be on the value of that boolean.

Your negative infinity case (as well as initiation) can be handled pretty easily with *sentinel positions*: these are fake positions that serve exactly the same function that −∞ does in 'traditional' alpha-beta, in that (using your pseudocode convention) `net(sentinel, P)` will always return that `P` is better for any (non-sentinel) position `P`. (The simplest way of doing this is likely with something like an `IsSentinel` boolean in the position structure, but that's a very code-specific decision).

There's a much deeper caveat, though: you're making the implicit assumption in this pseudocode that your neural network is *linearly ordering* positions, or at least close enough to linearly ordering them to make this algorithm viable; that is, there are no three positions `A`, `B`, `C` with `A`\<`B`, `B`\<`C`, but `C`\<`A` (where `A`\<`B` here is just shorthand for '`net(A,B)` returns that `B` is better'). If your neural network isn't at some level returning a value for each position, or at least the results of comparing two values one generated from each position, then it's almost certain that it will run into some measure of this 'rock-paper-scissors' issue. Unfortunately, there isn't an easy answer there, because the very premise of game tree search (that there is an Objectively Best position) breaks down in that case. There are certainly ways of trying to tackle that issue, but now we're starting to get into thesis-level research mathematics, in the sense that you could probably get a pretty good thesis out of working through various approaches to the problem...
> 1 votes

---
Tags: computer-chess, chess-algorithms
---


# Question
Title: How to determine checkmated positions using DOS/CMD, from numerous FEN/EPD chess positions?
I have a collection of checkmated chess positions, in FEN/EPD format. Most of the time, each of these positions contains some *useless* pieces, that I really want to remove, in the aim of getting cleaner schemes.

Then, I'm searching for a batch possibility to check if my whole chess collection is checkmate or not. Ideally, it would be a tool/solution using DOS/CMD, because I have to clean many FEN checkmates.

I've googled for various DOS chess tools, but in vain. I also searched to use some chess engines (under cmd), Arena/WinBoard, EPD2Diag, PGN-Extract, etc. but also without success.

Here are two examples:

```
[FEN "3q4/6b1/4k3/4r3/3p2Q1/B1N1R3/5R2/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

```
[FEN "1K6/1b6/1b6/1P6/7r/7p/7Q/4qN1k w - - 0 1"]

```

Here, it's obviously both checkmate for White, but knowing I have few hundreds of others, how can I get a DOS batch possibility to check all in once?

# Answer
I don't know if any such tool exists. If you want to program yourself you need to watch out for:

**Change of mating theme**: If you remove pieces you might get new/different mates, e.g. in:

```
    6rk/5Npp/8/8/8/8/2K5/7R b - - 0 1

```

if you remove the white knight and the black pawn on h7 you have a new mate, which might not be desirable.

**Impossible positions**: If you remove pieces you might end up with positions that cannot be reached in normal play. This can be as easy as positions where three pieces attack the king at the same time, but it can also be a lot more difficult. So in addition to checking for mate, you also need to run some *retrograde analysis* to check whether the position is legal
> 2 votes

# Answer
If I understand you correctly, you want to automatically simplify the mating sequence (final position minus a couple of moves) basically keeping the same mating pattern.

I think doing this automatically will be very difficult because if you remove pieces all kind of things can happen:

* additional sidelines (loss of quality)
* change of the theme of the mating pattern

... and if you don't run an engine to compare original mating sequences with simplified ones, you are in even more trouble...

BTW, are you sure that all the mates in your collection are forced and that the moves played are best play from both sides?
> 1 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, evaluation, fen
---


# Question
Title: Can wildcard characters be used in search in Chessbase for Android?
When entering names as search criteria, do wildcards exist, like + for one character and * for many? I have made many attempts without any success.

# Answer
From your own experimentation and the lack of documentation from a Google search indicates that wildcards are not supported at this time.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: chessbase, android
---


title: Sicilian Najdorf 6. Bg5 line

text:
# Question
Title: Sicilian Najdorf 6. Bg5 line
In the Najdorf can white play 7. Qd2 and plan later 0-0-0 for faster development? It looks very interesting. But we do not find such games with these move orders. Chess experts, please explain with variations and explanations so that it can help many budding players.

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "13"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6  5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2

```

# Answer
This line is not very popular because black can challenge the bishop with 7…h6. Now white is forced to exchange his bishop against the knight, either by taking right away 8.Bxf6 or after 8.Be3 Ng4. This is something you'd rather avoid, though its not immediately problematic for white.

If you try to avoid this with 8.Bh4 you run into 8…Nxe4. I actually lost a game like this, if I remember correctly, some 10 years ago.

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6
7. Qd2 h6 8. Bh4 Nxe4

```
> 7 votes

---
Tags: opening, 1.e4, najdorf
---


title: How bad is 1...a6?

text:
# Question
Title: How bad is 1...a6?
I know it is normal to play the e5 or d5 or c5 or Nf6. All of which have the common intention of controlling the center.

What if Black gets a little creative and tries a6? With the idea being that you go to b5 the next move and then play Bb7. If white castles kingside, you could then play h5,g5 and start an attack. White could easily get over excited with dominance over the center and over extend his pawns producing weakness in his ranks.

My question is:**How bad is 1..a6? Has it ever been played in modern chess by grandmasters?(By modern, I mean in the 21st century)?**

# Answer
It is not a bad move, i.e. it does not lose immediately. It is more common in open games where it can have some merit in preventing white pieces occupying the b5 square (e.g. Ruy Lopez, Najdorf).

In closed games (after 1. d4) I would expect it to be generally less useful, as after 2. c4 it would already be difficult to continue with your plan of playing 2...b5 (or would leave you a weak pawn on b5).

Playing unusual openings like this can have some merit if you want to avoid theory. However there is a reason that normal openings fight for the center....

Also I am not convinced that your plan (a6, b5, Bb7, no play in center, and if white castles short attack on the kingside), is all that dangerous for white. Playing an opening with the aim that white "gets overexcited..." is an unnecessary gamble IMO.

If white plays a4, the b5 pawn can turn out to be a weakness quickly and also the long diagonal could easily be secured with pawns on f3 and e4 for instance.

How do you intend to develop the other pieces and where do you put the other pawns? Perhaps you could start with that first and postpone the a6, b5 plan for later.
> 4 votes

# Answer
1... a6 is a wasted tempo in most openings. If you want to fianchetto your queen's bishop, 1... b6 is a better choice.

> How bad is 1..a6?

Well, because it does almost nothing, you're wasting a move. If you play 1. a3 as White, you're basically 'switching sides', so you decrease your expected score (against an opponent of equal strength) from 55% (White's first move advantage) to 45%. So one should expect 1... a6 to score 37%\* – in practice it scores more but that might be because of black players rating higher than their opponent.

> Has it ever been played in modern chess by grandmasters?

I know of no other example than Karpov - Miles as mentioned by Christophe Strobbe in the comments, but you can find a few games with both sides \>2500 here.

<sub>\*: the ratio 55% : 45% is about equal to 45% : 37%.</sub>
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Meditation practice among the chess elite?
My question is simple. Do we know of any 2700+ caliber players that regularly cite meditation as part of their lifestyle / preparation?

It's not hard to find meditating chess players, but I'm wondering about its use in top practice and perhaps if there are any studies that have attempted to measure its effects.

# Answer
I found these sources for "meditation" among the past 2 worlds champions:

Carlsen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELoJbv4bCHw

Anand: https://badrirag.wordpress.com/category/viswanathan-anand/

Q : Do you practise meditation and if so, how effective do you find it?

A: I don’t meditate regularly and hence I do not know the extent to which it can help.

Based on my Google research, some chess players meditate, but I see no evidence proving that top chess players meditate more than the general population
> 3 votes

# Answer
I don't know of any studies. A quick search turned up this article where Nakamura says

> I don't do anything special to prepare myself although I do occasionally meditate!
> 2 votes

# Answer
Found this article on GM Jonathan Rowson:

http://www.tm.org/blog/people/british-chess-champion/
> 1 votes

---
Tags: preparation, performance
---


# Question
Title: Chess software that can show all legal moves?
I'm a casual player, and I learned chess from my Dad when I was a kid, but I still have the problem that I miss really obvious moves I can make (or I don't see really obvious moves the other side can make.)

Is there a chess GUI out there that has a feature that shows all the legal moves possible on the board at a time? Like as arrows pointing from the pieces to squares or something like that?

# Answer
> 1 votes
I believe most sophisticated GUI would have the feature to:

* highlight possible moves for any piece; i.e. if you click (or hover) on a piece it will highlight all possible destination squares
* highlight attacked pieces
* highlight the last move

Arena and chesspad and many others should be able to do this.

Showing all possible moves is not useful as there are far too many in most positions, that you would not see anything anyway.

If you want to play online, also the lichess client (and probably others) can highlight moves.

# Answer
> -1 votes
Try chesspad. It is small and can highlight the available squares for a piece. Another alternative is Arena.

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: How to improve positional play while keeping the initiative?
I consider myself an advanced beginner in the 1400-1500 range. I play for fun, like to do tactics and I try to understand instead of memorizing openings and such.

I've been analyzing some grandmaster games and realized that improving the position of pieces is a critical part of chess. I usually develop pieces pretty quickly and launch attacks as soon as I have a bit of tempo. I often see weaknesses in my position but I fear that if I stop the attack I'll lose tempo and it'll backfire on me. Sometimes if the game is very closed, I'll try to break through first by sacrificing and gaining some tempo but I feel I should be making sure that every piece is at an optimal position before breaking in. The thing is, I want to make I dictate the game, not the other way around.

How would you recommend that I improve my positional play while keeping in mind tempo? I can think of putting pressure on pieces as being on, but what about pawn development? Moving my knight 3-4 times to put it on a better square? These seem to take too much time, and I realize I am in the wrong here.

# Answer
You need to realize that *initiative* (what you call "tempo") is only one of many factors that determine the evaluation of a position ("Who is better?") and consequently determine the best move (as you don't want to end up in a worse position after the move).

While playing aggressive attacking chess all the time might work against lower rated players; who are not that good at spotting tactics, at defending or who might be more easily intimidated by a piece sacrifice; if you play in the same style against stronger opponents you will find that more often than not your initiative is not all that sound. Indeed most won games at higher level are not resulting from directly checkmating the king in an attack, but from converting a tiny positional or material advantage at move 62 in an endgame.

I agree that playing like Morphy is more fun than positionally outplaying the opponent, but if you want to become a stronger chess player it is essential to broaden your horizon and not focus on initiative only.

I would recommend to start with evaluating a position (from your games or grandmaster games). In order to do so, ask yourself the following questions and do this for both sides (black/white)

* Are any pieces attacked?
* Are there obvious tactics available?
* Which pieces are well placed (lots of space to move around and attack something) and which not (little space to move and don't attack anything)?
* Is the king safe? Typically with many pieces on the board you want it behind pawns on either side after castling.
* Are there any weaknesses in the position such as isolated pawns, pinned pieces...?
* Who owns the center?
* Are there open or half-open files which are occupied or can be occupied by rooks?
* Is the position open or rather closed? Who would benefit from changing it?

As you see, I did not put "Who has the initiative?" here, because in my view, the initiative is made up of several factors like more piece activity, occupation of open files, etc

Based on the outcome of this evaluation you should come up with a plan. The difficult part is how to weigh the different factors, i.e., "Is a better piece activity worth a pawn sacrifice?" Or, "I am up a rook, but my king is under attack, will I survive?) Doing this correctly requires lots of experience. However usually, in most normal positions, dealing with attacked pieces (if you lose/win material) and keeping a reasonably safe king position are the main priorities and should get the most weight, before you think of anything else.

You don't need to go crazy with this evaluation, but keeping in mind that there are more factors than initiative is a good start. You could pay attention to one point at a time to get used to it.

Also IMO, at a level of 1400-1500 studying tactics will give you a lot more benefit than thinking of positional details.
> 3 votes

# Answer
user1583209 is right, "tempo" means something different in chess and is not the same as "initiative", what is what you are referring to.

"The thing is, I want to make I dictate the game, not the other way around.", this should not be the way of reasoning about a game or a specific position. In general, it´s the position on the board, which dictates what you have to play. For example, it is very likely that your king side attack will fail, if your center is broken.

An advanced beginner can apply a very concept, my ex-coach called it "chess machine", which states: Just look at all of your pieces, one by one, and then decide, which one is positioned worst and then improve its position. Although this sound too trivial, this works astonishing well. He also said that, if you play strategically correct, tactics and initiative will follow naturally. Manoevres like moving the knight 3-4 times to put it on a better square is something you can do if you are a really advanced player, you should really understand a position, which probably starts around 2200 ELO, or even higher.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Are the GUIs of ChessBase chess programs the same?
ChessBase (the company) has several chess analysis programs available: Fritz, Komodo Chess, Houdini Pro, Deep Junior and Deep Rybka. Do all of these programs use one and the same graphical user interface?

# Answer
> 0 votes
From the question Confused about ChessBase, the answer by @Apasserby sums the GUIs up nicely:

> Deep Fritz 14, Houdini 4, Komodo 9 and Rybka 4 all use the same Graphic User Interface (GUI).

So yes, ChessBase uses the same GUI.

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


# Question
Title: Who is better after this queen sacrifice line?
I was checking Hikaru vs Caruana's round 6 game, these are the first moves:

```
[Event "London Chess Classic 2016"]
[Site "London"]
[Date "2016.12.15"]
[Round "6.3"]
[White "Caruana, Fabiano"]
[Black "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2779"]
[WhiteElo "2823"]
[LiveChessVersion "1.4.8"]
[ECO "B96"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 {[%clk 1:59:50]} 2. Nf3 {[%clk 1:59:52]} d6
{[%clk 1:59:45]} 3. d4 {[%clk 1:59:48]} cxd4 {[%clk 1:59:39]} 4. Nxd4
{[%clk 1:59:44]} Nf6 {[%clk 1:59:24]} 5. Nc3 {[%clk 1:59:39]} a6 {[%clk 1:59:19]}
6. Bg5 {[%clk 1:59:26]} e6 {[%clk 1:59:01]} 7. f4 {[%clk 1:59:15]} h6
{[%clk 1:58:56]} 8. Bh4 {[%clk 1:59:08]} Qb6 {[%clk 1:58:40]} 9. a3
{[%clk 1:58:15]} Be7 {[%clk 1:57:01]} 10. Bf2 {[%clk 1:57:06]} Qc7
{[%clk 1:56:55]} 11. Qf3 {[%clk 1:56:14]} Nbd7 {[%clk 1:55:27]} 12. O-O-O
{[%clk 1:55:28]} b5 {[%clk 1:55:14]} 13. g4

```

So I came up with the following variation:

```
13. ... O-O 14. g5 hxg5 15. fxg5 Ne5 16. gxf6 Nxf3 17. fxe7 Qxe7 18. Nxf3

```

Who is better after the queen sacrifice?

# Answer
> 1 votes
How did you come up with this line?

Castling kingside on move 13 right into the attack, looks like suicide for black to me.

Also I don't see the point of white sacrificing the queen. Instead of giving black the dream square on e5, I'd first play h4 and only then g5, so that you can recapture on g5 with the h pawn.

Regarding your position at the end of your variation, it is probably just equal. Black does not have any particular weaknesses and also there does not seem to be any immediate threat of an attack on the black king anymore. Compare this with the queen sacrifice Caruana played in the game where he had only 2 pieces for the queen, but complete dominance on the light squares.

---
Tags: sacrifice
---


# Question
Title: Where can I find a list of all theoretically possible piece combinations where checkmate is possible? (e.g. bishop and knight and pawn vs knight)
There are obvious ones that I know, like queen and rook (or either) vs lone king, and I also know you can't checkmate with only a bishop or knight, for instance.

But what if you have a rook and bishop vs a knight, is that possible? What if it's vs a knight but with eight pawns? I mean the list is endless. In short, I just want to know when it's a good idea just to say it's a draw vs other times you just keep trying and trying to get a checkmate. Thank you.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The ones that are *not* possible are:

1. King + Bishop vs King
2. King + Knight vs King
3. King + Bishop vs King + Bishop *if the bishops are on the same color square*.

For the bishops, imagine black king on h1, black bishop on g1, white king on g3, white bishop on f3 giving mate. That isn't possible if the black bishop is also on a white square, say f1.

Otherwise, **checkmate is possible** with a given material balance.

For instance, of course rook and bishop vs knight can lead to checkmate, because checkmate with a lone rook is possible, and it is possible that the rest is captured.

Any material balance that includes a pawn can lead to checkmate, because pawns can turn into queens.

# Answer
> 0 votes
> I just want to know when it's a good idea just to say it's a draw vs other times you just keep trying and trying to get a checkmate.

I don't think you should base your decision on whether to play on, on the piece combination only. A few things that can happen are:

* A position might be theoretically won, but it is not easy if the opponent defends well (e.g. queen and king vs rook and king). The winning side might struggle giving mate within the 50 move limit.
* A position might be a theoretical draw, but very difficult to hold for the defender. You would want to play on in this case
* For some piece combinations also the position of pieces matters (e.g. central pawn vs side pawn).
* Some opponents might not be familiar with best play. In this case it is worth playing on drawn or lost positions.

---
Tags: checkmate
---


# Question
Title: Is there an Android viewer that understands international language comments in PGN?
I have a PGN file, in which I can view non-English (Cyrillic) comments on my PC in Chessbase or in Notepad++, but all Android apps (playchess, masterchess, scid on the go, droidfish) I tried instead show garbage for the comments. Is there an app that is worth trying that might support this? Example below:

```
[Event "chessclub.com"]
[Site "-"]
[Date "2016.8.5"]
[Round "?"]
[White "PlayerA"]
[Black "PlayerB"]
[Result "0-1"]
[PlyCount "6"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 {Белые сдались.} 0-1

```

# Answer
PGN files need to be converted to UTF-8 as pointed out by @Artem Mostyaev, then most apps would support this.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: pgn, android
---


title: Alternatives to the FEN notation

text:
# Question
Title: Alternatives to the FEN notation
Apart from the FEN notation, are there other even more compact known chess-position notations? One that would of course also entail castling rights, and en passant possibilities. One really missing bit in the FEN is the fact that it carries no information as to whether the position corresponds to a checkmate or check for that matter. Of course one can always put the position on the board and see if it's a checkmate or not, but it is not directly deducible from the notation. So such property would also be of importance in distinguishing between possible notations (apart from compactness etc.)

If it helps, this is asked for practicality and efficiency reasons in programming. Thanks for any suggestions.

# Answer
Since you're talking about programming, you're presumably looking for a storage scheme more compact *in computer memory space* than FEN. Besides going out to research how it's done in large tablebases, two possibilities come to my mind immediately.

# Normal FEN

For the sake of this discussion, "normal" FEN is just a typical text string represented with 1-byte (8-bit) characters. Let's look at a *simplified worst case*:

`r1b1k1n1/1p1p1p1p/p1p1p1p1/1n1q1b1r/R1B1P1N1/1P1P1P1P/P1P1K1P1/1N1Q1B1R w KQkq e3 999 999`

This isn't a valid FEN of course, but it's an effective upper bound on our complexity. There are eight characters per rank, plus seven slashes, five spaces, and thirteen additional characters make up the remaining fields. That's 89 characters, for a total size of **712 bits**.

# Compressed FEN

This version is just taking the a FEN representation and using some basic observations to reduce the number of bits required to store it. Here are our observations:

1. The slashes are unnecessary for machine storage; each rank must simply "add to 8". So we can eliminate slashes in our internal representation.
2. The remaining possible characters (in the first section) are: `kK qQ rR bB nN pP 12345678`. Distinction between 20 characters fits in five bits, so in our simplified worst case, we have five bits times eight files times eight ranks is 320 bits for the first part.
3. We don't need any spaces; again they're a convenience for humans. That saves us five characters.
4. "Who has the move" is one bit: White or Black.
5. Castling availability is four bits: available/unavailable for each of `KQkq`.
6. *En passant* is usually unavailable, and it can occupy a lot of space (six bits to represent all squares), so let's move it to the end and make it optional: if *en passant* bits are present, it's available, but if it's unavailable we just terminate the representation after the move & half-move bits to save space.
7. For simplicity, I'm just allocating ten bits for each of the move and half-move counters. This means that games represented in this format cannot exceed 1023 moves (half-moves since the last capture or pawn advance).

Our full format looks like this (in a simplified worst case with *en passant* available):

```
<position><whose move><castling><half moves><full moves><en passant>
 320 bits  1 bit       4 bits    10 bits     10 bits     6 bits

```

This gives us a total size of **351 bits** in our impossible worst case, a little less than half the size of our starting point.

# µFEN

If we abandon FEN altogether for the meat of the representation, we can slim it down a little further. Consider a single arbitrary square. That square can be empty, or it can have a piece on it. If it has a piece, it may be either white or black, and it may be a King, Queen, Rook, Bishop, Knight, or Pawn. That's a total of thirteen different states, which we can represent in four bits; something like this:

```
0000: empty square
0001: White Pawn
0010: White Knight
0011: White Bishop
0100: White Rook
0101: White Queen
0110: White King
0111: unused
1000: unused
1001: Black Pawn
1010: Black Knight
1011: Black Bishop
1100: Black Rook
1101: Black Queen
1110: Black King
1111: unused

```

Obviously there are some unused "partial bits", so this scheme could almost certainly be improved further by someone with more knowledge of compression techniques, or simply a more careful mapping of the different states. Also in practice, this might be *larger* than the *Compressed FEN* described above, since there's no compression of contiguous blank spaces. However, it does represent the whole board in a constant 256 bits (4 bits * 64 squares), which is a 20% improvement in the worst cases.

For simplicity, we'll just tag on the latter half of the *Compressed FEN* to complete the representation. So the format looks like this:

```
<position><whose move><castling><half moves><full moves><en passant>
 256 bits  1 bit       4 bits    10 bits     10 bits     6 bits

```

That gives us a worst-case space requirement of **287 bits**. Not too bad!

---

**Note 1:** Remember, this is all just a *worst-case analysis* because I have a computer science background. Standard FEN usually performs much better than I have described it, since normal positions aren't the everyone-on-the-white-squares scenario I've used for comparisons here. So the percent improvements are likely a little lower than I've actually represented, but the trend probably still holds, at least for the compressed FEN representation. I'd be very interested if someone wanted to do a probabilistic average-case analysis for standard FEN (and by extension, the compressed version proposed above)!

**Note 2:** Remember that the speed tradeoffs for dealing with compressed formats may or may not be worth it for your applications! Depending on what language you're using and the level of control you have over individual bits, you may find that simple FEN is significantly faster to *use*, even if it requires more space!

**Note 3:** If you wanted to add a "check/checkmate/no-check" indicator to either of the new proposed notations, it's an extra two bits to represent the three additional states. Just toss it in before the *en passant* indicator.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Extended Position Description (EPD) adds "operations" to FEN. These operations include, among others, best move, repetition count, and predicted move. It's not, obviously, more compact, but it does more.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Unless I am missing something obvious, the representation

```
0      empty
100    white pawn
101    black pawn
110xxx any piece except Rook
111x   Rook

```

encodes a full house (that is, prior to any capture) in 32\*1 + 16\*3 + 12\*6 + 4\*4= 168 positional bits. Plus, of course, 4 castle bits, 3 en passant bits, and 7 or 8 50-move-rule bits.

The worst case (8 pawns has been promoted by the cost of capturing 8 other pawns, resulting in 20 pieces + 4 rooks on board) requires 40\*1 + 20\*6 + 4\*4 = 176 positional bits.
> 1 votes

# Answer
It is possible to fit the board and all info (except 50 move rule) into an easy manageable 256 bits. I would suggest the following. 64 squares and 4 bits per square allows for 16 possible states. 0 would represent the empty square. Then we have 6 pieces, but I would reserve a 7th for the 'moved rook' so castling possibility can be determined. One bit to indicate white or black. We are using 15 states and are left with 1 more state: value 8 (1000 binary). It also represent an emoty square, but we can use that on the 3rd or 6th rank to indicate the pawn ahead of it moved 2 squares and is subject to being captured 'en passant'. Finally, we also use this value to indicate the side to move. Find the first empy square on the lower half of the board to indicate it's white to move. On the upper half for black. Better stay clear from the 3rd and 6th rows for easyness.
> 0 votes

# Answer
You asked: One really missing bit in the FEN is the fact that it carries no information as to whether the position corresponds to a checkmate or check for that matter. Of course one can always put the position on the board and see if it's a checkmate or not, but it is not directly deducible from the notation.

At this point, it might be a good a good question if one wants to embed a computationally complex piece of information into what should only be a description.

The same thing applies to move notations - for example, between: algebraic notation (e2e4 b1c3) and SAN (e4 Nc3) - the later requires an engine to compute the TO position of every move, and is computationally complex to decode, while the former doesn't require writing a whole move generator to determine the inferred TO position - which may be of benefit.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: notation, fen
---


# Question
Title: What does "best five out of eight" mean?
The following dialogue is between two chess players at the end of a game. Does it mean "you have lost 4 games so far, what is your idea about going for the 5th game and developing the competition to 8 games"?

Dialogue:

> A: Checkmate! Care to try for best five out of eight?
>
> B: No, Thank you.

The source: http://www.clockwork-comics.com/2012/09/06/i-like-the-way-you-think-schlumberger/

# Answer
> 5 votes
To me, it just seems A is asking for a match of 8 games. If you exclude the possibility of draws, you'll need 5 wins to win such a match. This is similar to the best-of-X formats used in playoffs in many sports.

In any case, it's not terminology specific to chess. You might have more luck on English Language & Usage or English Language Learners.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Essentially, you would not ask for "best five out of eight" unless you have, excluding draws,

1. lost 4 points
2. can win 5 points within 8 games.

But these together are mathematically impossible, as that would require 9 games.

It doesn't get better if draws are allowed.

The reply should be "best 5 out of 9."

---
Tags: terminology
---


# Question
Title: Chesscademy Tactic: Is my alternative as good as the right answer?
I've been playing with the Chesscademy app for a while, solving some tactics (which I'm not sure is improving my chess, but it's a good puzzle to kill some time). Today I ran into one tactic that I failed to solve, though my play seemed to result in the same advantage as the one picked as an answer.

Since I'm a beginner at Chess, I might be missing something about the move that makes it a better candidate, so I decided to post it here and get some opinions.

Below is the move that the tactic claimed is right (Black then White):

```
[FEN "r1r4k/1p5R/3b4/4q3/B3P1Q1/1n1P3P/6P1/5R1K b - - 0 1"]

1... Kh7 2. Rf7 Kh6 3. Qh4 Qh5 4. Rh7 Kh7 5. Qh5+

```

My answer was basically the same, except instead of `3. Qh5 Rh7` I played `3. Qh5 Rf6`.

So I could foresee one outcome from that play:

```
[FEN "r1r4k/1p5R/3b4/4q3/B3P1Q1/1n1P3P/6P1/5R1K b - - 0 1"]

1... Kh7 2. Rf7 Kh6 3. Qh4 Qh5 4. Rf6 Kg7 5. Qh5 (Kf6 6. Qh6)

```

That opens up an X-ray attack on the bishop if the King captures the rook (`5. Kf6 Qh6`), though it can be easily defended if the king goes to a square next to the bishop.

Is there any reason why this play is worse than the original answer? Usually, when I thought I was right about a play I'd think for a while and find some reason why it was not a good one, but this time I'm not really figuring out why the original answer would be better than this one.

# Answer
> 15 votes
The problem is that 5. Qxh5 isn't check, so Black has time for some back rank tricks (instead of capturing the rook on f6):

```
[FEN "r1r4k/1p5R/3b4/4q3/B3P1Q1/1n1P3P/6P1/5R1K b - - 0 1"]

1... Kxh7 2. Rf7+ Kh6 3. Qh4+ Qh5 4. Rf6+ (4. Rh7+ Kxh7 5. Qxh5+) Kg7 5. Qxh5 Rc1+ 6. Qd1 Rxd1+ 7. Rf1 Rxf1#

```

---
Tags: tactics, queens, puzzles, captures
---


title: Psychological training

text:
# Question
Title: Psychological training
I'm currently training a student (rating: ~1350 ELO, Age: 16) in my local chess club, who has been making quite some progress in his rating and playing style lately. Nevertheless, when he is playing against me or another much higher rated opponent (1700+ ELO), he always plays quite cowardly and defensively and isn't going for an attack even if it is objectively good for him. Therefore, he is quite happy when he draws a game against a higher rated player instead of taking a little risk to win a game.

How can I access this psychological problem in my training sessions and teach him some courage?

# Answer
### Possible reasons

Strictly speaking to content oneself drawing a much higher ranked player in tournaments, when not having a clear understanding of what the exact counterpart for aggression might be, is not a bad idea at all. This said, I would look at two main sources for this to happen:

* **Playing style**: not all chess players encourage attack: there are many examples of ultimate GM who are notorious for their positional solid play who dismantle the opponent only one bit at a time, very often just going into endgames where they convert tiny positional advantages into wins (promoting that f pawn after 30 moves preparation). Above all I would mention Karpov and Kramnik, not ultimately known for their attacking fantasies but for sure almost impossible to win against exactly due to the hard discipline and strong knowledge of theoretical positions.
* **Knowledge of enough lines, variations and continuations**: it is by all means true that one is more comfortable attacking in positions where one knows already many (if not all) the standard outcomes, because *"well, the worst that can happen is that I will be left with a doubled pawn on the g file..."*

### Possible exercises

I myself am part of the above category and generally dislike attacking only for the sake of it; since it is however true though that this characteristic has sometimes held me back from better results, I tried to address the problem in two ways, so far:

* **chess puzzles**: looking and solving chess puzzles helps giving you the "feel" of a given position, showing how tactics can help winning a piece on the short run or combining together bishop and knight for a vortex attack (or the like).
* **better preparation of openings and position**: preparing all (well, not all, but many) possible outcomes of a given opening helps minimising the "risk" of a blunder attack; it can be helpful to practice only one-two openings and defenses to be more secure about the continuations.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The simple solution is to teach him to not look at his opponents' ratings until after the game. Seeing that he played well against a player who he did not know had a high rating will boost his confidence.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Play the board, not the rating.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Give your student a particular responsibility, for example finding out as much about a particular opening, in this case an assertive or attacking opening such as the King's Gambit, and ask him to use the opening in his training with you.

Praise any positive changes in his play, even if it is only a mildly attacking move or series of moves.

If these ideas don't work, start playing games by giving your student the advantage of a minor or major piece, as appropriate. He will be forced to attack because you will have more work to do to develop your fewer pieces.

Finally, turn things around: tell your student you want to develop your defensive skills, and ask him to attack more to help you do this.
> 0 votes

# Answer
You can't solve this person's problems, or teach them courage really, they might have complex psychological issues that go beyond chess. Best you can do is just do the best you can with the mechanics of chess and leaving the rest up to the person himself.
> -4 votes

---
Tags: training, psychology
---


# Question
Title: Why is castling seen as making the king so safe?
I'm an amateur chess player.

I was reading an article about how f7 is such a vulnerable square and how castling makes the king safe and attacks on F7 no longer worrisome. But looking at it, I am wondering, is this really that much better for the king?

Sure, originally F7 is only protected by the King himself. But after castling (king side) it has only one additional protector, the rook (compare that with the four protectors the E2 pawn has at the beginning of the game). Secondly, that rook is unlikely to stay there anyways and protect the F7 pawn, as it's likely to move to an open file early in the game. It would be a waste a five point piece to keep there just to protect the pawn. Lastly, we now also have the additional concern of backrank mate in this position.

Can someone explain to me why castling is so important for king safety?

# Answer
> 14 votes
The f7 pawn is really only a concern for beginners. It is not easy to attack for white with many pieces and is easily defended.

Generally (in the opening/middlegame) you want to surround your king with pieces or pawns for protection. Usually you don't want to bind your pieces to the protection of the king as they have other (attacking) duties. This leaves you with hiding the king behind pawns.

You want those protective pawns to be difficult to attack and difficult to exchange for other pawns as this would open files and diagonals, leaving your king without protection. A typical motif in chess (particularly with opposite side castling) is a *pawn storm* where the attacking side pushes its pawns forward in order to open lines around the enemy king. Obviously this is most difficult to achieve if the pawns are far away, i.e. close to their original position.

Another way to attack the protective pawns would be with pieces. This is often easier to do in the middle than towards the border where there are fewer squares available for the attacking pieces.

Now in the opening both sides fight for control of the center; basically in order to gain space to operate the pieces and because pieces can easily move to either side of the board from the center. In order to achieve this central control the players typically move one or two central pawns and concentrate piece activity around the center. This means that often the situation in the center is very dynamic and lines can be opened, pieces exchanged... (another typical motif: ''open lines in the center against an uncastled king''). You don't want to find your king among all this action in the middle of the board.

Taking all of this together in many cases hiding the king behind pawn chains on the side of the board after castling is usually a good idea for king safety. Another added advantage is that castling joins the rooks, i.e. the castled rook can easily get to the central files (c-d-e-f) where there are often open or half open files to occupy.

There are also cases where players don't chose to castle (e.g. in some Sicilian and French opening lines), usually in positions with static, blocked centers and easily to attack king-/queen-sides.

# Answer
> 9 votes
> Can someone explain to me why castling is so important for king safety?

Kings are safest behind pawns that have not moved from their starting squares, because it's harder to create open files and diagonals against such a pawn formation. Once pawns have moved forward, they can be attacked more easily by other pawns, which can make them move even more.

In most good openings, one or more central pawns are moved at the start of the game on each side.

Castling lets you put your king behind the untouched pawns on one wing.

Additionally, it's usually harder to direct one's pieces against a side of the board rather than the center, because the edges of the board are a natural space constraint.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Most chess activity in the opening is through or related to the centre. With your king still in the centre, you overtly expose him to attack. Castling makes safe your king, in general.

Most openings try to get the king safely tucked away ASAP. But many openings delay castling to the edge of safety for the sake of tempo or central play and piece development. There are many a classic chess game where black delayed castling by 1 move too many and succumbed to a violent attack through the centre.

---
Tags: castling, king-safety
---


# Question
Title: Chess Logic - Tigran Petrosian's doctoral dissertation
I have recently learned that former chess world champion Tigran Petrosian earned a PhD title from Yerevan State University; the title of his dissertation title was *Chess Logic*.

I would like to read what he wrote. I can read Russian. Any idea how to get hold of this text?

EDIT: I have just read in a chess history book that between his two matches with Spassky, Petrosian worked on the philosophy of the chess battle, studied the secrets of the process of chess thinking, successfully defended a dissertation on this subject and became a candidate of philosophical sciences - my translation from Russian. This cryptic text does not mention the title of doctor (PhD) but an obscure title of candidate.

# Answer
> 4 votes
There is another copy of the English edition in the University Library in Frankfurt am Main (Germany), here.

This particular library obtained the chess book collection of Willi Summ (1896–1982) as donation in 1975. Though it is not as large as Cleveland or Den Haag, it possesses some rare volumes. The paper in question is no. 1379 in the printed catalogue:

```
@BOOK{summ:meissenburg:1982,
    EDITOR = {Summ, Willi AND Meissenburg, Egbert},
    TITLE = {Der Frankfurter Schachbücherkatalog},
    SUBTITLE = {Schachschriften in der Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek Frankfurt am Main},
    DATE = {1982},
    PAGETOTAL = 116,
    PUBLISHER = {Schachverlag Horst Helten},
    LANGUAGE = {german},
    GENDER = {pm},
    EDITORTYPE = {compiler},
    ISBN = {3-922853-03-X},
    EDITION = 2,
}

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
According to **WorldCat.org**, Tigran Petrosian's PhD thesis is available in three libraries: the Koninklijke Bibliotheek ("royal library") in The Hague (Netherlands), the Danish Union Catalogue and Danish National Bibliography (a catalogue strangely identified as a "library"?) and the State and University Library in Denmark.

Apparently, the English translation is (or was) only available in 250 copies, so there may be other libraries that have it but that aren't covered by WorldCat.org. Once you've identified a library that has it, you can try to get a copy through **interlibrary loan**. (This may work best if you have access to a university library, especially for international interlibrary loan.) The other option is trying to buy it through a website for second-hand books, but the book is so rare that your chances of finding it are very small.

See:

1. Tigran Vartani Petrosjan: *Chess Logic*. Skakhus-forlaget, 1968. Translated from the Russian into English by Carl Andersen. (See the catalogue entry at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek.)
2. Tigran Vartani Petrosjan: *Skak logik*. Copenhagen : Skakhus, 1968. Translated into Danish by Carl Andersen. (See the catalogue entry at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek.)

# Answer
> 3 votes
There seems to be an English copy of a 39-page “personal summary by the author" (presumably not the full dissertation) here.

---
Tags: theory, books
---


title: Verbal description of FIDE/USCF ratings

text:
# Question
Title: Verbal description of FIDE/USCF ratings
Does anyone know of a reliable source (e.g. a knowledgeable tutor, academic surveys, GM John Doe's autobiography) that verbally describes the ability and study/training material of a variety of chess players along the FIDE/USCF rating ladder? For example

* The average X-rated player will see most one- and two-move tactics but is prone to oversight. He may know five or six moves of his "favorite" opening but likely is still gaining experience with what factors make a position "good." He has likely already learned basic endgame mates and KP vs. KP situations, and may go on to learn simple fundamentals like Lucena and Philidor.
* The average Y-rated player will rarely ever lose material outright to simple threats or tactics. Lately he has been binging on *Reassess Your Chess*. He probably has a decent store of experience and theoretical knowledge about his opening repertoire. He may find it useful to study more intermediate-advanced endgame tactics like the Vancura position and memorize which pawns win or draw in which positions.
* The average Z-rated player...

and so on. I know that any rigid attempt at proscribing what material is appropriate for which level player is bound to fail, but I still think ballparks and "on average" statements are useful for growth.

# Answer
Here's a post I found that seems along the lines of what you're asking for. The descriptions seem more or less accurate to me (probably more for USCF as opposed to FIDE ratings), although the corresponding "years experience" it lists alongside the ratings seem to assume continuous, fairly serious tournament play, as opposed to a casual hobby.

As far as being a "reliable source", I'm not sure who the author is, but s/he appears to be quite prolific on that site, having written over 100 articles.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: rating
---


# Question
Title: Can a knight jump into a square in both an odd and even number of moves?
For example, a knight can go from b1 to d5 in 2 moves and in many other routes by an even number of moves. However, can it go to d5 in an odd number of moves?

I was wondering this because it would give me a little bit of insight into some theory.

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

# Answer
> 9 votes
No. There's a fairly simple proof by looking at the square colors: they alternate each move. That means the parity of the move count to travel between two squares is fixed.

---
Tags: knights
---


title: Promoting to Rook or Bishop

text:
# Question
Title: Promoting to Rook or Bishop
Is there any chess position where the most correct move would be promoting a pawn on the 7th or 2nd rank to a Rook or Bishop since the queen can perform both their moves.

# Answer
> 3 votes
For rook is typical this one:

W: Kh8 Re3, B:Kg4 Pf2

White to move can't hold.

Re4 Kg5 Re5 Kg6 Re6 Kf7 Re5! f1R!! (queening runs to Rf5 with stalemate). Rh5 Kg6 0-1

---
Tags: pawn-promotion
---


title: Elo loss for resign vs checkmate

text:
# Question
Title: Elo loss for resign vs checkmate
Is there a difference in the amount of ELO a player loses from resigning versus being checkmated?

If so - What is the difference in the calculation?

# Answer
> 22 votes
No difference whatsoever. As with tournament results, ELO (or Glicko, or any other chess rating system) counts all losses the same, all draws the same, and all wins the same. Doesn't matter if you lose on time, resign, or get mated on the board --- nor whether it took 12 moves or 120. Likewise a draw is a draw, whether by agreement, repetition, stalemate (either side), or even the 50-move rule.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Elo rating system is widely used in non-chess competition too.

As for other rating systems (here's a comparison between *Elo*, *Glicko*, *TrueSkill* and *ree*, our free-to-use ranking algorithm), all wins count the same, **even in sports/games with a score**.

For multifaction rating system (e.g. for boardgames), calculations depend on all standings, so you need to correctly enter the full results, not just the winner (but scores still don't matter).

There are some game-specific implementations for including scores (or different winning condition) in rating algorithms, indeed (e.g. FiveThirtyEight for NFL).

---
Tags: rules, rating, elo
---


title: Which chess opening to learn?

text:
# Question
Title: Which chess opening to learn?
I decided to start learning some opening theory, so far I have only played online and studied a couple of end games. Seems that a correct approach might be to chose one opening for white and two for black (answers to e4 and d4), and stick to those three openings for a while, since that is a fairly low number so you can keep up with the variations with some work, and also large enough so you can use your preparation in a good amount of games.

So the question would be, what do you think is easier to start with, as a first timer learning any theory, e4 or d4? (I usually prefer d4 for no particular reason). And which defenses would you start with against those two moves as black.

# Answer
> 5 votes
They say that beginners should learn `1. e4` as White first, and the "natural" response `1... e5` as Black. But I think it's a matter of personal taste.

Usually for beginners the easiest openings are those that simply stick to the basic principles: pieces development, occupation of the center, King safety, tempo.

In my opinion, at this stage *you should avoid* openings having somewhat "complicated" strategic ideas, such as 1) "control of the center without occupying it", or 2) "induce pawn advances and center occupation in order to attack it later", or also 3) "lose tempo to gain positional compensation". To me, it's important to grasp the basic principles *before* you go and break them, even if the resulting openings are sound.

This rules out most of the Indian Defences against `1. d4`, as they fall in both categories 1 and 2. Same goes for the Sicilian against `1. e4` as its main purpose is to avoid White having an `e4 d4` pawn duo in the center, thus falling into category 1 (center control without occupation). Many other openings fall into these categories and should be avoided, such as the Scandinavian Defence (cat. 3), the Alekhine Defence (2), the English (1), the Dutch (1), and all the "unusual" openings for Black and White (Bird Opening, Indian Attack, Lasker Opening, etc.).

Note that *this doesn't mean the opening I just mentioned are bad*: they are sound, and some of them are really a lethal weapon if you can handle them well (I'm thinking about the Sicilian and most of the Indian Defences, for example). But you should first try the "most basic" ones, before you go and dig deep into these.

TL;DR

To me, the most basic openings to study as a beginner are the "symmetric" openings, thus `1. e4 e5` and `1. d4 d5`, as they stick to the basic principles of the openings.

On `1. e4 e5` I recommend

* Italian Game, classical variation `2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5`
* Italian Game, Two Knight Defence `2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6`
* Four Knights Game `2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6`
* Ruy Lopez `2. Nf3 Kc6 3. Bb5`

On `1. d4 d5`:

* Queen's Gambit Declined `2. c4 e6`
* Slav Defence `2. c4 c6`

Of course if you are a beginner you shouldn't go too deep into these lines, but just have an overall grasp of the resulting positions and the ideas behind them.

# Answer
> 6 votes
For a beginner, the goal of the opening is simply to avoid losing material and blundering; don't stress playing a perfect opening just yet. However, here are some general (and not at all exhaustive) distinctions between the openings:

1. e4

* Often leads to open games
    * Bishops are slightly more valuable, as they have more space on the board to play
    * Through the midgame towards the endgame, entire files may be left open - because of this, Rook positioning is key and often can be make or break
    * Openings to study: Ruy Lopez, Sicilian (although I'd avoid playing the Sicilian as a beginner)
2. d4

* Often leads to more closed games
    * Bishops and Rooks are relatively immobile throughout the midgames, and serve passive (but still important!) roles
    * Knights form the basis for strong attacks and exerting control in the center of the board
    * Openings to study: Queen's Gambit, Indian Defenses (fianchettoed bishop)

Ultimately, you should decide which you prefer better. However, I personally find 1. e4 to be a simpler opening to play, with less chances for blundering. Hope this helps!

# Answer
> 2 votes
It depends on what kind of chess player you are, whether you like open more tactical positions, or rather closed positional play. So can't give a general advise what you should learn.

You could take a look at typical positions of different openings around move 10-15 and see what kind of position you like best.

In the end you cannot go wrong with e4 or d4 and any major opening. If you want to become serious with chess, avoid obscure gambit lines and other strange openings like 1. g4... Learn an opening with the aim of fighting for an advantage, not with the aim of avoiding theory or surprising your opponent with a suspicious side line.

Not to be overwhelmed by theory, when learning any opening, I recommend to start with the main line first and look at side lines later or when you encounter them in play. Make sure not only to learn the moves by heart but also to understand what they do and also what typical plans or motifs are in the particular opening you learn.

# Answer
> 2 votes
It's true that 1. e4 and 1. d4 are the two most common opening moves by White, and there is nothing wrong with playing one of them. The other answers provide good explanations on which one might suit your playing style better, and what common openings they will lead to.

However, if you have a limited amount of time to study openings and want to pick one up that will serve you well at the beginner levels, I would suggest checking out the Bird's Opening, characterized by 1. f4.

Now, 1. f4 is less popular than 1. e4, 1. d4, or even 1. c4 among top players, and there are concrete reasons for this, some of which are discussed in this question. However, at the beginner level these nuanced considerations tend not to matter too much. On the other hand, adopting a less common opening has its advantages when you're just getting started, namely:

1. You have fewer variations to learn, and
2. Your opponent is more likely to be unfamiliar with the opening and make early mistakes.

After 1. f4, you will likely face one of two main variations:

If Black response 1. ...d5, your goal will be to establish control over the e5 square and probably launch an attack on your opponent's kingside.

```
[FEN ""]
1. f4 d5

```

The other common response by Black is 1. ...e5, known as From's Gambit, which can lead to some very complex and dangerous tactical situations. The best way to prepare for this response is to study some concrete lines coming out of this variation and identify common tactical pitfalls.

```
[FEN ""]
1. f4 e5

```

Now, I want to caution that as your play improves and - more to the point - as you start to play tougher opponents, at some point you'll want to switch to a more standard opening, since as the level of play improves those "nuances" I mentioned earlier start to become more relevant. However, I would suggest trying out the Bird if:

1. You don't want to commit the time to learn all the major variations to a more common opening
2. You're not afraid of getting involved in sharp, tactical lines, and
3. You're prepared to learn a more common opening later on as your level of play improves.

# Answer
> -1 votes
I suggest two openings for white and black which I find simple and easy to study. Ruy Lopez as white

```

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5

```

and Caro-Kann as black

```

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

1.e4 c6 2. d4 d5

```

Caro-Kann may sound difficult but it has easy patterns to learn because you can always answer white's second move with 2.. d5.

---
Tags: opening, learning
---


# Question
Title: What are some main lines of the Horwitz Defense (d4 e6) besides the French?
I'm not the most experienced player by a long shot and appear to be below average, but I know how to play the French Defense quite well and I tried e6 in response to d4 a few times because I don't really know many d4 openings and got a French out of it. How do I respond to c4 or any other common ones (maybe Nf3 or g3?)? I've looked at opening databases and know popular responses, but I want to know why these moves were made. If anyone knows of a video describing it well, that'd be preferable, but I'll gladly take any advice I can get.

# Answer
> 10 votes
Basically, you have a lot of options left to transpose into other openings. I remember having read a book calling this opening the Franco-Indian for this very reason. *I do not expect that many White players will actually play 2. e4;* they played 1. d4 for a reason and are usually not experts in the French opening.

After 2. c4, you can:

* transpose to the Orthodox Queen's Gambit with 2... d5
* transpose to the Dutch opening with 2... f5 (but you lose the ability to play the Leningrad system)
* transpose to the Nimzo-/Queen's Indian with 2... Nf6
* transpose to the Benoni with 2... c5 (thanks @user1583209)
* 2... Bb4+ is about the only independent line.

2. Nf3 (and to a lesser extent, 2. g3) offer similar transpositional options.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I play this a lot, as I'm happy to play a French defence 2. e4 d5. My personal solution has been to learn ideas from the Dutch Defence so have an interesting, attacking game with 2. c4 f5 or most other quieter second moves from White.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It makes sense to think in terms of the future development of black pieces.

As you know, in the French defense Bishop f8 goes either to e7 (classical, gets rid of g5-d8 pin) or b4 (Winawer, typically leads to exchange on Nc3). So in d4-e6 openings you may have the same choice (say, orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined vs. the Nimzo-Indian or maybe Ragozin defense).

Next, your c8-Bishop can easily get stuck in place because of pawn e6. You can leave it as is, or develop it by fianchetto b6-Bb7 (or even Ba6). The latter is probably the Queen's Indian or Tartakower-Makogonov-Bondarevsky system in QGD.

Next, after e6 you probably have no immediate plan to play e5, as it's just loss of tempo (or even loss of a pawn). So Black wants to move the d7 and c7 pawns first. Thus we may have basically three pawn formations: e6-d5-c5, e6-d5-c6 and e6-d6-c5.

e6-d6-c5 makes sense if you develop a bishop on b7 (so it's not stuck behind your pawns and has control of e4 square), so this is essentially the classical Queen's Indian defense formation.

e6-d5-c6 is an (in)famous solid triangle which is typical for that Semi-Slav defense or whatever you call it.

And e6-d5-c5 (which is also normal in French defense) will probably be the Tarrasch variation of QGD (if Black plays Be7) or Nimzo-Indian defense (if c5 played after Bb4).

Now about White's unusual plans. First of all, White may postpone Nc3 (typically by playing Nf3 first), so Black can't go Nimzo-Indian with Bb4-Bxc3 and has to play QGD or Queen's Indian (or maybe even Bogolyubov defense with Bb4+) instead.

Another idea is to play some "black" game with one additional move. For example, a so-called London system where White plays c3-d4-e3 which could be viewed as the Slav (or Semi-Slav defense) played by White.

Considering the g3 move, if White plays g3 along with d4 then it probably ends in some variation of openings mentioned earlier (actually g3 can be played in any of them at some point), because White has to support the d4 pawn by moving c2 and e2 anyway.

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Psychology of moving a piece

text:
# Question
Title: Psychology of moving a piece
I've noticed that many amateur games degrade incredibly once they enter mid-game (meaning move beyond opening theory).

There are some great questions and suggestions about improving mid-games, such as strategies to improve positions etc.

Yet, many players with mediocre ratings (myself included) cannot help but make impulsive moves, blunders, simply because they have not approached the move carefully enough.

So my question is this: Does anyone have suggestions for improving mental discipline when making moves? I'm thinking of suggestions such as; examine how your move might weaken positional defence; or, have you observed how many pieces are attacking the square your moving too?

There has to be some methodological way of improving one's game by improving one's mental discipline.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes good habit building is necessary. You need a chess-checklist in your mind. Prepare your checklist before a game, and then go into the game while using it. As you become a higher-rated player your checklist will evolve.

* Look for all the "check" moves you can make in a position at each turn.
* Look for all the "threat" moves you can make in a position. (this may include simple tactics)
* Look for all the "tempo" moves you can make in a position. (as in, attacking a piece that forces the opponent to move).
* Look for all the complicated tactical moves, combinations of moves.

As you evolve the checklist becomes smarter:

* Look for all "double threat" moves.
* Look for all "tempo" moves but also "counter-tempo" moves (where the enemy moving the piece is actually helping your enemy's position become better).
* Look for all the counter-checks
* Look for all undefended pieces
* Look for all weak points in enemy structure

These checklists become more elaborate in the mid-game and you play slow-games to build up that habit, until it is subconscious. Then you can play faster games.

---
Tags: psychology
---


title: Lessons to learn from Chess.com

text:
# Question
Title: Lessons to learn from Chess.com
How much do you know Chess.com website? Chess.com is the most successful website for chess players to use in their chess life. I'm a web developer and I'm going to create a social network for chess players all around the world. What are some strengths/shortcomings of Chess.com which one might learn from in building another site? What do you need that Chess.com or other currently chess sites do not have? Not interested in getting in a debate here, but just to discuss possible functional features/capabilities, and I understand that different users will have different priorities.

# Answer
Short comings are best illustrated by comparison. I'd simply encourage you to compare/contrast chess.com with lichess.org.

I could observe some pluses and minus here, and that might be subjective, but it's better you discovered chess.com's defects through comparison yourself.

I'd also add - I like chess.com greatly, but I like lichess.org more. I also play directly on the site and by app.

(some might find this response **NOT** specific enough but identifying 'shortcomings' is a bit subjective with out something to compare to)
> 2 votes

# Answer
This question can be quite opinionated, but seeing as you are seeking to improve on the site with your own design, rather than bash it, I'll try to be objective and help out. Here are some (non-exhaustive), factual examples:

1) Users have to pay for certain features. It can be taken as a given that users would much rather prefer features for free than having to pay for them. For example, for deep analysis, playing multiple games, getting rid of ads, and more, users have to pay on chess.com

2) The majority of people on chess.com do not play variants

3) It is quite difficult for players to play against those ranked well above them, even in tournament settings

4) Mods (in select cases) have been known to abuse their privileges and ban/kick people without reason

5) The site is not open-source

Hope this helps! Would also encourage you to look at lichess, and decide what improvements you can find there.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: software, online-chess, computer-chess, websites, chess.com
---


# Question
Title: A chess problem (need help with analysis)
my question is about the position below.

This is, if I copied it correctly, from a book called "How Good Is Your Chess" by Evans. I'm an amateur so pretty much every single problem is difficult and not the book I had thought it would be but as I was returning this book, I tried another problem in the first few pages, where white is said to have three options: 1.Rac1 2. Rfc1 and 3. Bxf6

We are then told the answer is 3. I had chosen number 1. In explaining the answer I had chosen and why it's wrong, he says that if you choose that, then it leads to loss of initiative and endgame:

1 Rac1 Nc5 2 dxc5 Qxc5+ 3. Kh1 Qxg5 4. Qa4 Qa5 5. Qxa5 bxa5

Eventually now we get to my question. Why do I have to take the black knight on my second move anyways? What if I just moved my queen to a square defending my knight? Can I get out of this with a winnable endgame?

```
2r2rk1/p1qn1ppp/bp1ppn2/6B1/2PP4/PQ1B1P2/1P2N1PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1

```

# Answer
If white does not take the knight on c5 after 1. Rac1, Nc5, the c4 pawn will be lost after 2.Q-somewhere, Nxd3 3.Qxd3, Bxc4. And that is just horrible for white.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: problems
---


# Question
Title: Openings that Black has success with statistically?
I love the B06 Modern Opening for Black:

```

[Title "White - Black"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Bc4 e6 5. Nf3 Ne7 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bh4 a6 8.O-O Nd7

```

I find it leads to a strong position for White to attack and a secure one for Black to defend (especially if it leads you to the Hippo Defense because, as Black, I've had my greatest success with atypical openings:

```

[Title "Petrosian vs. Spassky, World Championship 1966 (game 16)"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.Nf3 d6 4.Be2 e6 5.c3 Nd7 6.0-0 Ne7 7.Nbd2 b6 8.a4 a6 9.Re1 Bb7 10.Bd3 0-0

```

Question: What are the major defences that statistically have seen the most success by Black?

# Answer
> 2 votes
It depends very much on what you intend by the word "advantage": if you are asking

> Are there any openings that give Black advantage at correct play?

the answer is obviously no, as well as there are no openings that give White advantage, at correct play. If otherwise there will just be no openings, rather only that one line that always gives advantage to White (or Black, respectively) without any need to play anything else. At correct play all standard opening variations are equal, if only there might be a tiny slight advantage for White in the sense that it is enforced to play the next move and as such the next-to-come threat.

If instead you are asking

> What are the major defenses that statistically have seen the most success by Black?

that is another matter completely. You might want to have a look at any of the large chess databases present on the internet where openings are sorted by winning percentages according to the variation (for the games contained in the database, obviously); an example is this page from ChessTempo showing winning percentages for the Sicilian Najdorf variation, for instance, that is well-known to be among the most played defenses versus 1.e4. Other examples for 1.d4 are the Slav defense or the Indian defenses, as standard sound counterplay for Black.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I'll start with a quote about the Modern Opening from The Road to Chess Improvement by Alex Yermolinsky:

> The Modern Defense. This 'universal' method of solving opening problems has been widely popularized recently. Some of its protagonists even claim that White has no way of earning the opening advantage after `1. d4 g6 2. e4 Bg7`. Some statement, isn't it? By the way, it can hardly be supported or overturned by statistical research. The thing is, in these days of open tournaments, there are many situations when Black feels obliged to play for a win. It could be the sheer difference in the player's strength that determines the choice of opening and, at the same time, affects the outcome. If we mostly see grandmasters playing it as Black against masters (USCF 2200) and experts (USCF 2000), what do you think we'll get? A statistical edge to Black, of course.

While the Modern Opening isn't bad, of course, the point is that we *can't* rely on simple winning statistics alone. If it really promised Black better chances than, say, the Ruy Lopez or the Najdorf, it would see much more play at the top level. What an opening *can* do, is make the game sharper with more chance on decisive results (whether that means a win or a loss for Black).

If you enjoy playing the Modern Opening, and score good results, by all means, keep doing it. Just remember that what works for *you*, doesn't need to work in general.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You don't really want to play an opening that gives statistical success, i.e. averaged over all kind of players.

What you want is an opening that you are comfortable with,

* that matches your style of play
* that does not require more work than you are willing to devote learning it
* that leaves you with positions where you still have an idea how to continue
* that perhaps sees your opponents not as well prepared
* that gives *you* good results

If that's the modern defence for you, why not. It is not a bad choice.

I would not go by database winning percentages as these can be quite distorted due to move order changes, different levels of players in the database, GM playing for a draw with black (while most normal players would rather play for a win with any colour) etc.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: How are the ECO codes for chess openings assigned?
As an example, I will use the `Ruy Lopez`.

`C60` is defined as `1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5` as well as host of other `Ruy Lopez` variations.

`C60` is also the `Ruy Lopez - Cozio Defence, Paulsen Variation` which is defined by the moves `1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nge7 4.Nc3 g6`

`C66` is the 'Ruy Lopez - Closed Berlin Defence, Chigorin Variation`which is defined by the moves`1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O d6 5.d4 Nd7\`

How do these codes get assigned? In the case of the `Ruy Lopez`, are the codes differentiated after the move `3.Bb5`?

# Answer
It looks to me like someone just went in order of these started with the b pawn, the c pawn, the d pawn, the e pawn, and then indexed those. and then went the other side and said these were responded to by the b pawn, the c pawn, the d pawn.

Naturally, there is a more sophisticated classification of the whole deal. ECO stands for the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. As with all encyclopedias, it has volumes. There are 5 volumes: A, B, C, D, E. Note that these correlate to the range of eco's which is A00 to E99. In your example, there are 40 entries for the Ruy Lopez (C60 through C99).

Each volume is broken down into a type of openings designated by,

- Volume A: Flank Openings
- Volume B: Semi-Open Games other than the French Defense
- Volume C: Open Games and the French Defense
- Volume D: Closed Games and Semi-Closed Games
- Volume E: Indian Defenses

and in general, the main eco codes break down into

**A**
- White first moves other than 1.e4, 1.d4 (A00–A39)
- 1.d4 without 1...d5, 1...Nf6: Atypical replies to 1.d4 (A40–A44)
- 1.d4 Nf6 without 2.c4: Atypical replies to 1...Nf6 (A45–A49)
- 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 without 2...e6, 2...g6: Atypical Indian systems (A50–A79)
- 1.d4 f5: Dutch Defence (A80–A99)

**B**
- 1.e4 without 1...c5, 1...e6, 1...e5 (B00–B09)
- 1.e4 c6: Caro-Kann Defence (B10–B19)
- 1.e4 c5: Sicilian Defence (B20–B99)

**C**
- 1.e4 e6: French Defence (C00–C19)
- 1.e4 e5: Double King Pawn games (C20–C99)

**D**
- 1.d4 d5: Double Queen Pawn games (D00–D69)
- 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 with 3...d5: Grünfeld Defence (D70–D99)

**E**
- 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6: Indian systems with ...e6 (E00–E59)
- 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 without 3...d5: Indian systems with ...g6 (except Grünfeld) (E60–E99)

*Source:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia\_of\_Chess\_Openings
> 5 votes

# Answer
The origin of the Classification and the Codes themselves were the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings compiled and edited by Aleksandar Matanović.

They are organized as indicated in another answer above as were originally laid out in the ECO. For a fairly comprehensive **oneline** copy of Chess Openings see HERE
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: How to calculate which opening move is modern
What approach would you recommend to calculate current tendency in opening position?

You have set of (move+year) values from games.

Amount of total games is unknown but will be somewhere between 1 and 100.

I can just sum some f(year) for each move and compare.

a) Would you do it differently? b) If not, what f(x) would you use?

# Answer
Would recommend choosing a year to serve as a base year, then calculating a weighted average based on that. For example, if we choose 2000 as our base year, and say Ruy Lopez was played once in 2000, twice in 2001, and three times in 2003, we would sum (1 * 0 + 2 * 1 + 3 * 3)/6 = 11/6.

Alternatively, you could also compute the median (which in this case would be 2). Or, you could graph the data entirely, which would probably give you the best picture.

This definitely sounds like an interesting study, good luck! Let me know if you have followups
> 1 votes

# Answer
You should think what the typical timescale for opening trends would be. Also to make the result meaningful you should take into account changes in move order that lead to the same position/opening.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, mathematics
---