title: Is chess with pawn odds still a draw?

text:
# Question
Title: Is chess with pawn odds still a draw?
Virtually everyone believes chess from the starting position is a draw, and the result is borne out at top level - at the ICCF correspondence chess world chess championships, almost every game is drawn.

Is there any evidence that chess at pawn odds is or is not a draw?

I'm interested in all variants of pawn odds - so e.g. White starts without the a2-pawn, the b2-pawn, etc., and also Black starts without the a7-pawn, b7-pawn, etc. As far as I know starting without the f2 or f7-pawn is the largest handicap. If this is still drawn, then the other pawn odds are probably drawn too.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I run sf14.1 engine at TC 10m+5s.

**Black pawn odds**
There are 8 positions, black has no pawn at a, b ... h.

```
Score of Stockfish 14.1 white vs Stockfish 14.1 black: 8 - 0 - 0 [1.000]
...      Stockfish 14.1 white playing White: 8 - 0 - 0  [1.000] 8
...      White vs Black: 8 - 0 - 0  [1.000] 8
Elo difference: inf +/- nan, LOS: 99.8 %, DrawRatio: 0.0 %
8 of 8 games finished.

```

*Sample games*

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.03.19"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Stockfish 14.1 white"]
[Black "Stockfish 14.1 black"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/1ppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[GameDuration "00:34:11"]
[PlyCount "178"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Termination "adjudication"]
[TimeControl "600+5"]

1. d4 {+1.63/29 28.20s} Nf6 {-1.55/26 14.34s} 2. Nf3 {+1.74/26 6.24s}
g6 {-1.54/30 18.33s} 3. e3 {+1.59/28 12.15s} Bg7 {-1.59/28 12.63s}
4. Be2 {+1.66/25 9.66s} O-O {-1.62/28 12.61s} 5. O-O {+1.72/25 11.56s}
d5 {-1.64/26 20.27s} 6. b3 {+1.78/26 11.13s} Ne4 {-1.55/28 13.58s}
7. Bb2 {+1.60/30 18.39s} c5 {-1.56/28 11.30s} 8. a4 {+1.71/26 9.79s}
Nc6 {-1.62/27 12.46s} 9. Na3 {+1.81/27 13.64s} Bf5 {-1.46/25 11.90s}
10. Nb5 {+1.87/25 11.58s} h5 {-1.59/26 14.45s} 11. c4 {+1.82/26 29.30s}
dxc4 {-1.65/24 13.45s} 12. Bxc4 {+1.82/26 8.11s} Nd6 {-1.55/25 11.90s}
13. Nxd6 {+1.78/28 40.03s} exd6 {-1.67/26 16.18s} 14. Rc1 {+2.10/30 81.19s}
g5 {-1.74/28 38.65s} 15. Bd3 {+1.81/27 11.60s} Bxd3 {-1.43/25 7.81s}
16. Qxd3 {+1.85/28 16.71s} g4 {-1.59/29 21.60s} 17. Nd2 {+1.75/29 13.60s}
Re8 {-1.58/28 11.68s} 18. Nc4 {+1.67/31 55.15s} cxd4 {-1.53/27 11.22s}
19. exd4 {+1.72/27 8.32s} d5 {-1.54/27 12.42s} 20. Ne3 {+1.80/30 14.78s}
Qg5 {-1.44/29 22.67s} 21. Rfd1 {+1.53/31 83.68s} Rad8 {-1.56/28 18.00s}
22. Qf5 {+1.48/28 8.36s} Qxf5 {-1.61/30 19.02s} 23. Nxf5 {+1.45/27 9.03s}
Re2 {-1.76/30 14.32s} 24. Bc3 {+1.50/30 33.45s} Ra2 {-1.28/27 11.24s}
25. Ra1 {+1.64/28 5.65s} Rc2 {-1.36/31 22.98s} 26. Nxg7 {+1.51/29 11.09s}
Kxg7 {-1.40/31 18.93s} 27. Rdc1 {+1.78/27 7.89s} Rxc1+ {-1.41/30 13.00s}
28. Rxc1 {+1.53/31 23.63s} Rc8 {-1.44/34 51.37s} 29. Bd2 {+1.36/34 45.74s}
Kf6 {-1.44/34 22.09s} 30. Rc5 {+1.45/33 20.91s} Ke6 {-1.34/28 7.28s}
31. Kf1 {+1.30/29 5.52s} b6 {-1.27/30 19.91s} 32. Rc3 {+1.44/29 11.96s}
Kd7 {-1.47/32 36.47s} 33. f3 {+1.61/27 9.52s} f5 {-1.44/28 7.88s}
34. Kf2 {+1.58/30 11.33s} Rg8 {-1.43/27 12.86s} 35. h4 {+1.58/26 7.40s}
gxh3 {-1.32/32 63.21s} 36. gxh3 {+1.70/29 8.27s} h4 {-1.59/32 9.31s}
37. Bf4 {+1.53/30 9.45s} Rg6 {-1.52/31 12.95s} 38. Kf1 {+1.61/30 6.20s}
Rf6 {-1.39/31 21.45s} 39. Bg5 {+1.63/33 29.02s} Rf7 {-1.41/30 7.03s}
40. Kf2 {+1.65/29 2.88s} Rg7 {-1.59/31 10.20s} 41. Be3 {+1.49/31 7.97s}
Nd8 {-1.82/29 14.56s} 42. Bf4 {+1.78/27 5.47s} Ne6 {-1.87/31 9.82s}
43. Be5 {+1.88/26 4.53s} Rg8 {-1.54/33 11.62s} 44. b4 {+1.74/28 6.29s}
Ra8 {-1.56/30 8.61s} 45. Ra3 {+2.00/25 3.75s} Ng5 {-1.41/28 7.22s}
46. Kf1 {+1.86/26 8.29s} Ne6 {-1.38/28 11.00s} 47. Bf6 {+1.90/28 8.34s}
Nf4 {-1.61/31 9.94s} 48. Bxh4 {+1.95/25 2.42s} Nxh3 {-1.67/31 7.53s}
49. Bf6 {+1.87/28 3.69s} Nf4 {-1.75/29 5.36s} 50. Kf2 {+2.00/26 3.85s}
Ng6 {-1.70/31 31.05s} 51. Kg3 {+2.04/30 11.40s} Rf8 {-1.75/29 2.41s}
52. Bg5 {+1.98/29 3.49s} Rg8 {-1.68/30 2.93s} 53. Kf2 {+1.92/29 9.81s}
Nf8 {-1.87/30 4.88s} 54. Bf6 {+1.87/29 5.04s} Ng6 {-1.56/30 3.81s}
55. a5 {+1.71/30 4.87s} Ra8 {-1.71/31 5.22s} 56. Kg3 {+1.85/29 3.64s}
Kc6 {-1.95/31 5.71s} 57. Be5 {+1.74/31 6.48s} Kb7 {-1.99/29 3.36s}
58. Ra2 {+1.91/26 4.61s} Ra7 {-1.95/29 7.67s} 59. Bd6 {+1.87/26 3.52s}
Kc6 {-2.25/32 14.51s} 60. Bb8 {+2.04/25 3.45s} Ra8 {-2.24/32 12.58s}
61. Rc2+ {+1.97/25 4.05s} Kb7 {-2.22/30 2.64s} 62. Bd6 {+2.70/23 4.57s}
Rg8 {-2.57/27 3.10s} 63. axb6 {+3.24/24 3.81s} Kxb6 {-3.07/24 5.97s}
64. Rc3 {+3.29/24 3.37s} Ka6 {-3.30/26 13.94s} 65. Rc6+ {+3.50/25 5.06s}
Kb7 {-3.53/23 0.87s} 66. Rc5 {+3.35/26 5.36s} Ne5+ {-3.30/25 11.79s}
67. Kf4 {+3.71/26 5.80s} Ng6+ {-3.44/23 0.71s} 68. Kg5 {+3.71/27 8.80s}
Ne5+ {-3.50/23 2.21s} 69. Kf4 {+3.63/28 3.12s} Ng6+ {-3.58/25 1.57s}
70. Kxf5 {+3.53/26 4.76s} Nh4+ {-3.54/25 2.55s} 71. Kf4 {+3.95/25 3.90s}
Rd8 {-3.75/26 5.25s} 72. Bc7 {+4.00/25 4.05s} Rf8+ {-4.00/26 9.08s}
73. Ke5 {+4.00/26 3.37s} Nxf3+ {-3.84/24 1.21s} 74. Kxd5 {+4.00/25 4.16s}
Rg8 {-4.05/27 11.90s} 75. Be5 {+4.09/24 4.17s} Rd8+ {-4.14/29 10.44s}
76. Ke6 {+4.50/27 10.37s} Re8+ {-4.66/26 6.41s} 77. Kd7 {+4.75/23 3.40s}
Rg8 {-4.70/22 1.78s} 78. Rc3 {+4.84/25 3.63s} Rf8 {-5.00/21 1.62s}
79. Ke7 {+5.19/27 4.02s} Rf5 {-5.04/23 1.94s} 80. Ke6 {+5.42/26 3.61s}
Rf8 {-5.04/23 1.70s} 81. Bf6 {+5.57/26 3.82s} Nd2 {-5.37/25 3.15s}
82. Rd3 {+5.74/24 3.65s} Ne4 {-5.61/25 6.98s} 83. Be7 {+6.15/27 6.64s}
Nf2 {-6.09/29 9.25s} 84. Re3 {+6.52/23 7.54s} Rh8 {-5.92/19 1.34s}
85. d5 {+6.67/22 2.98s} Rh6+ {-6.98/23 13.59s} 86. Kd7 {+6.94/22 4.05s}
Ng4 {-6.89/22 6.08s} 87. Re4 {+7.08/22 4.20s} Nf6+ {-6.58/22 4.08s}
88. Bxf6 {+9.09/22 4.24s} Rxf6 {-10.46/24 8.06s} 89. d6 {+9.51/20 4.60s}
Rh6 {-14.73/19 4.96s, White wins by adjudication} 1-0

```

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.03.19"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Stockfish 14.1 white"]
[Black "Stockfish 14.1 black"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/p1pppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[GameDuration "00:31:22"]
[PlyCount "142"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Termination "adjudication"]
[TimeControl "600+5"]

1. d4 {+2.31/28 25.15s} Nf6 {-2.15/29 56.13s} 2. c4 {+2.18/29 33.49s}
e6 {-2.18/26 4.89s} 3. e3 {+2.32/25 5.32s} Bb4+ {-2.13/29 44.53s}
4. Bd2 {+2.31/27 22.40s} Bxd2+ {-2.31/26 10.60s} 5. Qxd2 {+2.01/27 12.92s}
c5 {-2.38/27 16.99s} 6. Nf3 {+2.35/27 16.90s} Ne4 {-2.21/26 11.25s}
7. Qd3 {+2.27/27 11.82s} f5 {-2.12/27 33.89s} 8. Be2 {+2.24/25 13.15s}
Na6 {-2.31/24 9.98s} 9. Nc3 {+2.55/26 16.41s} Rb8 {-2.48/29 11.80s}
10. Rb1 {+2.66/28 14.26s} Nb4 {-2.48/30 10.17s} 11. Qd1 {+2.43/31 22.25s}
cxd4 {-2.30/28 18.51s} 12. exd4 {+2.22/32 27.97s} Qa5 {-2.23/30 12.94s}
13. O-O {+2.16/31 17.09s} Nxa2 {-1.96/29 13.45s} 14. Nxe4 {+2.18/31 14.76s}
fxe4 {-2.35/31 25.49s} 15. Ne5 {+2.17/30 13.24s} O-O {-2.22/32 28.97s}
16. Qc2 {+2.57/32 37.59s} d6 {-2.35/28 16.18s} 17. Nc6 {+2.61/26 9.35s}
Nb4 {-2.37/29 15.30s} 18. Qxe4 {+2.56/30 15.76s} Nxc6 {-2.31/29 16.77s}
19. Qxc6 {+2.57/30 15.23s} d5 {-2.31/30 14.33s} 20. b3 {+2.55/30 25.13s}
Qa2 {-2.35/31 15.64s} 21. Bf3 {+2.21/28 15.22s} Rb6 {-2.21/30 11.44s}
22. Qc7 {+2.42/30 15.54s} Rxb3 {-2.18/33 13.33s} 23. Ra1 {+2.34/31 21.24s}
Qb2 {-2.15/30 11.91s} 24. cxd5 {+2.56/33 31.64s} Qxd4 {-2.32/32 29.75s}
25. Rxa7 {+2.35/30 12.68s} Rc3 {-2.29/29 12.57s} 26. Qe7 {+2.35/30 10.03s}
Qf6 {-2.35/30 13.51s} 27. Qxf6 {+2.30/29 16.91s} gxf6 {-2.40/33 9.73s}
28. h3 {+2.33/29 13.64s} Rf7 {-2.42/28 11.48s} 29. Raa1 {+2.22/32 21.23s}
e5 {-2.42/31 10.46s} 30. Rfc1 {+2.66/31 12.90s} Rxc1+ {-2.43/32 9.41s}
31. Rxc1 {+2.70/33 18.69s} Rf8 {-2.58/33 16.87s} 32. Kh2 {+2.42/30 9.84s}
Bf5 {-2.35/33 23.23s} 33. g4 {+2.53/32 25.32s} Bg6 {-2.13/27 8.89s}
34. Rc6 {+2.69/29 8.64s} Rd8 {-2.34/32 29.04s} 35. h4 {+2.67/32 17.82s}
Kg7 {-2.34/30 8.71s} 36. d6 {+2.45/31 14.42s} Be8 {-2.26/33 20.51s}
37. Rc7+ {+2.50/33 8.71s} Kf8 {-2.36/32 8.71s} 38. Rxh7 {+2.47/35 9.41s}
Rxd6 {-2.26/36 9.04s} 39. h5 {+2.45/36 9.32s} Rd4 {-2.18/35 8.50s}
40. h6 {+2.25/36 16.20s} Kg8 {-2.17/34 9.18s} 41. Rg7+ {+2.46/34 8.79s}
Kh8 {-2.18/39 13.18s} 42. Bb7 {+2.53/39 9.27s} Ba4 {-2.25/34 8.60s}
43. Kh3 {+2.77/40 10.04s} Bc2 {-2.11/37 9.76s} 44. Rf7 {+3.40/32 8.76s}
Rd6 {-2.14/37 14.89s} 45. f3 {+3.50/33 13.81s} Bg6 {-2.13/36 13.64s}
46. Re7 {+3.58/32 12.42s} Rd8 {-1.97/35 8.05s} 47. Kg3 {+3.99/29 8.26s}
Rf8 {-3.38/34 24.70s} 48. Bd5 {+3.99/31 9.08s} Rd8 {-3.41/33 9.52s}
49. Bb3 {+3.96/32 8.24s} Rb8 {-3.18/33 14.96s} 50. Bc4 {+4.03/36 25.11s}
Rb6 {-3.60/34 18.32s} 51. Rd7 {+4.12/32 4.83s} Bc2 {-3.36/34 5.33s}
52. Bd5 {+4.13/34 5.73s} Ra6 {-3.69/33 13.67s} 53. Bb7 {+4.24/34 5.70s}
Rb6 {-3.12/31 5.24s} 54. Ba8 {+4.29/35 7.86s} Ra6 {-4.83/35 36.83s}
55. Bd5 {+4.39/38 12.21s} Rb6 {-4.83/31 1.44s} 56. Kh4 {+4.60/30 4.63s}
Rb1 {-4.83/30 2.61s} 57. f4 {+4.76/28 5.82s} exf4 {-4.84/29 2.60s}
58. Rc7 {+4.84/27 4.88s} Bg6 {-4.86/29 3.44s} 59. Rc6 {+4.97/27 5.92s}
f3 {-4.87/27 3.21s} 60. Bxf3 {+5.10/28 5.87s} Kh7 {-5.06/34 7.31s}
61. Rxf6 {+5.18/28 4.45s} Re1 {-5.27/28 6.99s} 62. g5 {+5.18/30 6.67s}
Ra1 {-5.61/25 6.24s} 63. Re6 {+5.26/25 5.36s} Ra4+ {-5.93/21 4.45s}
64. Kg3 {+5.48/24 4.98s} Bb1 {-6.34/29 10.87s} 65. Bc6 {+7.28/23 5.17s}
Rc4 {-6.35/28 1.39s} 66. Kf3 {+8.01/23 6.67s} Rc1 {-7.82/22 6.55s}
67. Kg4 {+8.20/26 5.21s} Rc4+ {-7.80/19 3.15s} 68. Kh5 {+8.33/27 6.60s}
Bc2 {-8.31/24 5.57s} 69. Re7+ {+8.91/25 6.21s} Kh8 {-10.01/25 14.71s}
70. Bf3 {+9.18/26 4.62s} Rd4 {-10.82/21 6.26s} 71. Re8+ {+9.73/27 21.50s}
Kh7 {-10.73/17 0.51s, White wins by adjudication} 1-0

```

**White pawn odds**
There are 8 positions, white has no pawn at a, b ... h.

```
Score of Stockfish 14.1 white vs Stockfish 14.1 black: 0 - 2 - 6 [0.375]
...      Stockfish 14.1 white playing White: 0 - 2 - 6  [0.375] 8
...      White vs Black: 0 - 2 - 6  [0.375] 8
Elo difference: -88.7 +/- 116.0, LOS: 7.9 %, DrawRatio: 75.0 %
8 of 8 games finished.

```

*Sample games*

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.03.19"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Stockfish 14.1 white"]
[Black "Stockfish 14.1 black"]
[Result "0-1"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPP1P/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[GameDuration "00:30:24"]
[PlyCount "139"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Termination "adjudication"]
[TimeControl "600+5"]

1. d4 {-1.73/26 17.70s} Nf6 {+1.80/28 36.69s} 2. c4 {-1.73/26 9.70s}
g6 {+1.93/28 6.51s} 3. Nc3 {-1.71/26 2.64s} Bg7 {+1.88/27 13.33s}
4. e4 {-1.80/27 2.49s} d6 {+1.82/26 13.24s} 5. Nge2 {-1.73/27 0.91s}
e5 {+1.86/27 43.08s} 6. d5 {-1.74/30 46.33s} a5 {+2.10/30 5.37s}
7. h4 {-1.74/29 13.76s} Na6 {+1.91/26 10.81s} 8. Ng3 {-1.61/28 2.52s}
h5 {+1.85/30 10.13s} 9. Bg5 {-1.71/27 3.26s} Bh6 {+1.73/33 83.83s}
10. Bxh6 {-1.57/33 50.24s} Rxh6 {+1.58/33 15.17s} 11. a3 {-1.50/30 11.04s}
Ng4 {+1.75/29 97.01s} 12. f3 {-1.57/29 23.06s} Ne3 {+1.86/28 0.003s}
13. Qd2 {-1.81/32 21.77s} Nxf1 {+1.72/27 5.46s} 14. Nxf1 {-1.69/28 12.44s}
Rh8 {+2.03/29 20.23s} 15. b4 {-1.78/28 4.11s} Bd7 {+2.05/29 21.99s}
16. Rb1 {-2.05/28 9.11s} Qf6 {+2.04/25 1.23s} 17. Kf2 {-1.69/26 13.52s}
Kf8 {+2.18/25 2.24s} 18. Ne3 {-1.79/27 23.61s} Bg4 {+2.24/28 52.78s}
19. Qe2 {-1.97/30 14.44s} Kg7 {+2.20/27 0.003s} 20. Nc2 {-2.25/29 50.31s}
Rhc8 {+2.16/28 0.003s} 21. Kg3 {-2.06/31 62.03s} Bd7 {+2.14/25 9.09s}
22. Qd2 {-2.14/29 15.09s} Qe7 {+2.18/26 2.35s} 23. Rh2 {-2.30/28 77.70s}
f5 {+2.37/24 20.01s} 24. Qg5 {-1.93/29 13.05s} Qxg5+ {+2.15/26 2.75s}
25. hxg5 {-2.03/29 8.72s} fxe4 {+2.05/29 2.31s} 26. Nxe4 {-2.00/30 10.28s}
Bf5 {+2.16/31 3.08s} 27. Rh4 {-1.92/30 13.14s} Rf8 {+2.18/33 17.55s}
28. Ne3 {-2.19/31 19.59s} Bxe4 {+1.89/32 0.004s} 29. Rxe4 {-2.56/34 32.46s}
Rf7 {+2.14/35 0.011s} 30. f4 {-2.57/32 14.68s} Rxf4 {+2.38/35 0.002s}
31. Rxf4 {-2.65/32 14.61s} exf4+ {+2.52/31 0.81s} 32. Kxf4 {-2.70/31 12.88s}
Rf8+ {+2.62/30 6.29s} 33. Kg3 {-2.58/30 3.91s} Rf7 {+2.73/30 14.87s}
34. Rb3 {-2.66/31 13.06s} Re7 {+2.75/32 22.47s} 35. Kf3 {-2.76/32 36.54s}
Rf7+ {+2.56/37 101.7s} 36. Kg3 {-2.68/32 13.05s} Re7 {+2.72/33 0s}
37. Kf4 {-2.87/32 21.69s} Kf7 {+2.95/30 12.94s} 38. Kf3 {-3.18/31 7.34s}
Ke8 {+2.86/36 26.58s} 39. Nc2 {-2.56/27 7.22s} Rf7+ {+2.81/33 0.67s}
40. Ke2 {-2.51/28 10.94s} Rf5 {+2.75/33 2.32s} 41. Rg3 {-2.37/27 6.94s}
Kd7 {+2.90/31 13.05s} 42. Kd2 {-3.39/31 49.69s} Rf4 {+3.20/30 11.85s}
43. Kc3 {-2.68/21 1.72s} c6 {+3.13/33 7.97s} 44. Ne3 {-3.05/28 8.59s}
axb4+ {+3.50/31 8.83s} 45. axb4 {-2.89/23 2.55s} Nc7 {+3.61/31 11.90s}
46. dxc6+ {-3.04/28 1.59s} bxc6 {+3.62/34 11.22s} 47. Ng2 {-3.07/26 7.45s}
Re4 {+3.66/33 13.18s} 48. Kd3 {-3.53/27 3.24s} d5 {+3.40/27 10.87s}
49. cxd5 {-4.02/25 2.55s} cxd5 {+3.89/27 6.26s} 50. Rf3 {-3.85/24 0.29s}
Rg4 {+3.89/22 7.75s} 51. Ne1 {-4.19/27 15.80s} Ne6 {+4.47/25 8.97s}
52. b5 {-4.01/24 7.38s} Nxg5 {+4.50/24 7.84s} 53. Rf8 {-4.60/25 5.16s}
Ne6 {+4.91/24 4.00s} 54. Rg8 {-4.44/25 0.003s} Rg3+ {+4.90/24 10.05s}
55. Kd2 {-4.43/23 5.47s} Kc7 {+4.96/25 2.73s} 56. Nd3 {-4.76/25 14.79s}
h4 {+5.39/25 7.96s} 57. Re8 {-5.18/24 0.61s} Ng5 {+5.52/25 6.93s}
58. Nb4 {-5.38/26 5.25s} h3 {+5.90/25 10.44s} 59. Nxd5+ {-5.77/23 1.54s}
Kd6 {+6.15/22 5.07s} 60. Nf6 {-6.28/24 9.68s} h2 {+7.12/24 6.28s}
61. Rh8 {-6.77/23 0s} Kc7 {+7.87/24 7.85s} 62. Nd5+ {-7.28/29 0s}
Kb7 {+8.05/23 5.33s} 63. Rxh2 {-7.66/29 0.50s} Nf3+ {+8.50/26 5.49s}
64. Ke2 {-7.68/26 0.23s} Nxh2 {+8.85/24 4.73s} 65. Kf2 {-8.60/51 7.45s}
Rg5 {+9.20/36 0s} 66. Nc3 {-8.60/24 5.19s} Kb6 {+9.45/29 5.58s}
67. Ne4 {-8.57/25 5.43s} Rg4 {+10.52/27 0.28s} 68. Nc3 {-8.89/21 5.45s}
g5 {+11.60/30 6.18s} 69. Nd5+ {-11.34/45 10.99s} Kxb5 {+59.16/30 0.52s}
70. Ke3 {-11.34/30 4.10s, Black wins by adjudication} 0-1

```

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.03.19"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Stockfish 14.1 white"]
[Black "Stockfish 14.1 black"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPP1/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[GameDuration "00:36:36"]
[PlyCount "219"]
[SetUp "1"]
[TimeControl "600+5"]

1. d4 {-0.41/27 18.79s} Nf6 {+0.55/25 18.15s} 2. c4 {-0.37/28 20.23s}
d6 {+0.50/24 8.53s} 3. Nc3 {-0.35/27 35.10s} e5 {+0.38/27 12.59s}
4. e4 {-0.56/26 12.01s} exd4 {+0.94/25 0.001s} 5. Qxd4 {-0.51/27 10.20s}
Nc6 {+0.89/23 1.45s} 6. Qd3 {-0.55/26 9.50s} Be6 {+0.79/25 32.11s}
7. f3 {-0.91/29 74.11s} Nd7 {+1.06/26 38.05s} 8. Be3 {-0.94/27 4.53s}
Nde5 {+0.90/26 17.48s} 9. Qc2 {-0.72/29 17.12s} Nxc4 {+0.89/27 20.15s}
10. Bf2 {-0.97/30 97.83s} Nb6 {+1.09/30 114.1s} 11. f4 {-1.05/31 0.009s}
Qe7 {+0.95/28 30.88s} 12. O-O-O {-1.01/28 43.94s} Nb4 {+0.93/29 14.46s}
13. Qb1 {-1.11/27 3.10s} O-O-O {+1.10/30 17.62s} 14. a3 {-1.22/29 3.64s}
Nc6 {+1.17/29 10.63s} 15. Qc2 {-1.24/27 5.09s} Kb8 {+1.25/27 11.65s}
16. Nf3 {-1.11/25 1.85s} Qe8 {+1.29/26 12.04s} 17. Bb5 {-1.31/27 15.05s}
Bd7 {+1.31/26 28.81s} 18. Kb1 {-1.05/27 6.50s} Be7 {+1.30/24 12.47s}
19. Nd5 {-1.01/27 14.47s} Rc8 {+1.17/26 15.90s} 20. Qc3 {-1.31/26 6.22s}
Nxd5 {+1.13/27 28.85s} 21. Rxd5 {-1.19/31 50.56s} a6 {+0.62/30 31.40s}
22. Bc4 {-1.28/31 6.04s} Na7 {+0.50/26 7.75s} 23. Qb3 {-0.72/24 12.62s}
c5 {+0.59/28 25.43s} 24. e5 {-0.80/27 17.41s} Ba4 {+0.68/31 16.81s}
25. Qd3 {-0.50/31 44.34s} dxe5 {+0.66/31 2.08s} 26. Re1 {-0.59/31 11.04s}
f6 {+0.86/28 0.80s} 27. fxe5 {-0.51/30 14.67s} Bc6 {+0.57/29 11.87s}
28. exf6 {-0.58/30 5.85s} gxf6 {+0.79/27 12.23s} 29. Nd2 {-0.53/31 33.56s}
Rd8 {+0.44/31 61.63s} 30. Bxc5 {-0.60/33 0.002s} Bxd5 {+0.54/29 8.88s}
31. Bxe7 {-0.46/29 15.07s} Qf7 {+0.45/30 0.001s} 32. Bxd8 {-0.44/28 9.64s}
Rxd8 {+0.53/29 0.20s} 33. Bxd5 {-0.50/31 9.88s} Rxd5 {+0.51/31 4.51s}
34. Qg3+ {-0.47/30 9.48s} Ka8 {+0.55/30 8.04s} 35. Nc4 {-0.36/30 8.69s}
Nc8 {+0.45/28 3.46s} 36. Qe3 {-0.50/30 18.31s} h5 {+0.50/33 28.86s}
37. Qe6 {-0.39/35 10.41s} Qg6+ {+0.41/33 8.57s} 38. Qe4 {-0.38/33 2.19s}
Qf7 {+0.42/36 13.75s} 39. Qe6 {-0.38/36 9.44s} Qg6+ {+0.34/35 0.006s}
40. Qe4 {-0.51/33 24.13s} Qg8 {+0.38/37 0.004s} 41. Qe8 {-0.43/34 9.94s}
Rd1+ {+0.37/34 3.86s} 42. Kc2 {-0.39/33 5.09s} Rd8 {+0.37/35 5.93s}
43. Qxg8 {-0.37/35 10.14s} Rxg8 {+0.40/36 5.34s} 44. Kd3 {-0.33/31 5.37s}
Kb8 {+0.49/31 11.21s} 45. Re6 {-0.38/33 26.16s} Rxg2 {+0.42/35 0.001s}
46. Rxf6 {-0.31/33 7.39s} Rg3+ {+0.37/33 9.39s} 47. Ke2 {-0.34/33 0.002s}
Rg4 {+0.31/30 10.68s} 48. Ne3 {-0.27/31 2.13s} Rh4 {+0.28/33 13.69s}
49. Rf8 {-0.35/29 6.50s} Rh2+ {+0.28/35 5.18s} 50. Kd3 {-0.33/33 2.48s}
Rxb2 {+0.27/34 15.50s} 51. Nc4 {-0.37/34 0s} Rb3+ {+0.27/32 9.88s}
52. Kd4 {-0.27/35 16.50s} Kc7 {+0.20/38 0.001s} 53. Rf7+ {-0.31/36 7.18s}
Kb8 {+0.19/38 5.78s} 54. Rf8 {-0.26/37 1.84s} Rb1 {+0.23/42 10.82s}
55. Rh8 {-0.28/39 0.61s} Rd1+ {+0.22/41 20.24s} 56. Kc3 {-0.25/42 0.001s}
Kc7 {+0.20/41 4.92s} 57. Rh7+ {-0.25/40 10.59s} Rd7 {+0.15/40 14.73s}
58. Rxh5 {-0.25/43 0s} Rg7 {+0.19/38 4.23s} 59. a4 {-0.25/44 10.51s}
Ne7 {+0.15/39 2.84s} 60. Kb3 {-0.25/40 5.56s} Rg3+ {+0.16/34 19.18s}
61. Ka2 {-0.24/41 7.76s} Rg7 {+0.25/32 3.28s} 62. Kb3 {-0.24/40 8.13s}
Nc6 {+0.23/36 0.003s} 63. Kc3 {-0.24/38 7.12s} Rg3+ {+0.25/31 6.09s}
64. Kb2 {-0.23/36 9.25s} Rg2+ {+0.20/35 0.001s} 65. Kc3 {-0.23/43 19.40s}
Rg3+ {+0.19/39 0.001s} 66. Kb2 {-0.23/39 17.70s} Kb8 {+0.18/43 0.002s}
67. Na5 {-0.21/36 9.72s} Nd8 {+0.18/40 0s} 68. Rh8 {-0.21/39 3.61s}
Rd3 {+0.19/41 20.31s} 69. Nc4 {-0.21/45 0.002s} Kc7 {+0.19/46 9.41s}
70. Ne5 {-0.21/42 0.001s} Rd5 {+0.18/42 6.05s} 71. Rh7+ {-0.20/42 11.05s}
Kb8 {+0.18/45 0.001s} 72. Rh8 {-0.20/39 3.70s} Kc7 {+0.16/43 6.07s}
73. Rh7+ {-0.19/38 0.003s} Kc8 {+0.15/45 6.25s} 74. Nc4 {-0.19/40 2.37s}
Kb8 {+0.15/42 6.25s} 75. Nb6 {-0.19/40 0s} Rd3 {+0.17/38 10.49s}
76. Rh8 {-0.18/38 12.21s} Kc7 {+0.15/42 0.001s} 77. Kc2 {-0.18/37 7.60s}
Rd6 {+0.15/41 24.40s} 78. Nc4 {-0.18/38 0s} Rf6 {+0.15/41 3.42s}
79. Kb2 {-0.17/37 13.96s} Rf4 {+0.15/40 3.13s} 80. Rh7+ {-0.16/40 15.91s}
Rf7 {+0.15/36 3.60s} 81. Rh6 {-0.16/35 7.62s} Rd7 {+0.14/37 0.001s}
82. Kc3 {-0.16/34 1.01s} Nc6 {+0.14/42 7.42s} 83. Rh8 {-0.16/33 4.51s}
Rd1 {+0.14/38 14.61s} 84. Kb2 {-0.14/38 0.001s} Rd8 {+0.14/34 1.95s}
85. Rh5 {-0.14/37 2.70s} Nd4 {+0.14/35 3.50s} 86. Rh7+ {-0.13/35 5.19s}
Rd7 {+0.13/35 4.30s} 87. Rh6 {-0.13/37 0.002s} Nc6 {+0.13/37 5.53s}
88. Kc3 {-0.13/32 3.40s} Kb8 {+0.13/30 1.25s} 89. Rh5 {-0.12/36 11.09s}
Rg7 {+0.13/34 0.66s} 90. Ne5 {-0.11/35 11.30s} Ne7 {+0.13/36 0s}
91. Nc4 {-0.11/34 8.99s} Ka7 {+0.12/35 0.001s} 92. Nd6 {-0.11/32 7.06s}
Rg6 {+0.13/36 4.74s} 93. Nc4 {-0.12/32 0.001s} Ng8 {+0.15/37 10.61s}
94. Kb4 {-0.18/34 0s} Nf6 {+0.14/33 4.82s} 95. Rh4 {-0.12/32 0.001s}
Rg3 {+0.19/36 7.53s} 96. Rd4 {-0.21/32 4.39s} Rg5 {+0.12/40 5.00s}
97. Rh4 {-0.13/34 0.001s} Rd5 {+0.13/33 8.25s} 98. Rh8 {-0.16/38 0.003s}
Ne4 {+0.11/36 5.17s} 99. Ra8+ {0.00/43 0.002s} Kxa8 {+0.07/33 0.77s}
100. Nb6+ {0.00/51 4.49s} Kb8 {+0.02/41 1.12s} 101. Nxd5 {0.00/55 4.73s}
Nd2 {0.00/47 0.42s} 102. Kc5 {0.00/54 4.97s} Ka7 {0.00/46 6.16s}
103. Kb4 {0.00/54 0s} b6 {0.00/55 5.38s} 104. a5 {0.00/56 2.40s}
bxa5+ {0.00/59 3.97s} 105. Kxa5 {0.00/61 2.70s} Kb7 {0.00/55 4.57s}
106. Nb4 {0.00/59 6.33s} Nc4+ {0.00/57 0.001s} 107. Ka4 {0.00/41 1.17s}
a5 {0.00/60 4.89s} 108. Kb5 {0.00/56 7.93s} axb4 {0.00/65 4.70s}
109. Kxc4 {0.00/103 1.45s} Kc6 {0.00/101 4.38s}
110. Kxb4 {0.00/112 6.59s, Draw by insufficient mating material} 1/2-1/2

```

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.03.19"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Stockfish 14.1 white"]
[Black "Stockfish 14.1 black"]
[Result "0-1"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPP1PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[GameDuration "00:31:15"]
[PlyCount "143"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Termination "adjudication"]
[TimeControl "600+5"]

1. e4 {-1.62/25 16.62s} c5 {+1.64/26 18.98s} 2. Nf3 {-1.53/29 24.09s}
d6 {+1.87/27 0.003s} 3. Bc4 {-1.58/26 9.99s} e6 {+1.66/28 20.78s}
4. O-O {-1.80/29 7.43s} Nf6 {+1.77/28 4.99s} 5. Qe1 {-1.68/28 17.07s}
Be7 {+1.66/30 0s} 6. d3 {-1.83/29 41.30s} O-O {+1.78/30 0.004s}
7. Nc3 {-1.77/28 7.82s} a6 {+1.90/28 6.47s} 8. a4 {-1.86/30 29.99s}
Nc6 {+1.85/29 4.22s} 9. Qg3 {-1.88/26 8.55s} Kh8 {+1.85/27 14.26s}
10. Bd2 {-1.87/25 7.48s} Bd7 {+1.91/26 6.79s} 11. Bb3 {-1.88/29 79.83s}
Na5 {+1.80/31 0.004s} 12. Ba2 {-1.78/27 7.96s} Nc6 {+1.87/28 45.65s}
13. Kh1 {-1.97/25 9.72s} Rb8 {+1.96/28 1.03s} 14. Ne2 {-1.91/26 11.64s}
b5 {+1.88/29 10.17s} 15. axb5 {-1.87/26 2.28s} axb5 {+2.00/27 23.78s}
16. Rae1 {-1.89/28 0.004s} Bc8 {+2.07/30 84.66s} 17. Rd1 {-2.06/30 114.6s}
Ra8 {+2.19/26 18.40s} 18. Bb1 {-1.92/29 0.003s} b4 {+2.18/28 29.65s}
19. c3 {-1.87/28 8.90s} Ra1 {+2.19/27 10.22s} 20. Nf4 {-2.14/27 17.60s}
Ba6 {+2.05/29 53.11s} 21. Rfe1 {-2.00/29 0.004s} bxc3 {+2.05/25 11.38s}
22. bxc3 {-2.32/28 18.53s} Ra3 {+2.12/27 24.76s} 23. Rg1 {-2.16/28 59.20s}
Qb8 {+2.42/28 75.57s} 24. Nh3 {-2.57/28 61.90s} Nd7 {+2.40/25 13.39s}
25. Nf4 {-2.20/29 22.34s} Nde5 {+2.46/27 25.62s} 26. Bc2 {-2.58/28 0.003s}
Nxf3 {+2.53/24 8.28s} 27. gxf3 {-2.58/26 8.07s} Rg8 {+2.66/26 3.00s}
28. Nh3 {-2.58/26 11.69s} Ne5 {+2.73/27 4.85s} 29. c4 {-2.59/26 5.04s}
Bb7 {+2.67/26 12.61s} 30. Ng5 {-2.57/25 1.24s} Bxg5 {+2.48/26 21.75s}
31. Bxg5 {-2.66/27 0.001s} f5 {+3.55/27 38.42s} 32. Rge1 {-3.48/29 69.17s}
Nc6 {+3.45/26 11.06s} 33. Ra1 {-3.70/30 31.76s} Rxa1 {+3.79/27 7.53s}
34. Rxa1 {-3.80/28 4.18s} e5 {+3.79/28 6.36s} 35. Ba4 {-3.85/28 17.23s}
f4 {+3.90/29 2.34s} 36. Qg2 {-4.07/26 19.68s} Nd4 {+3.86/31 0.002s}
37. Bh4 {-3.66/27 3.58s} Bc6 {+3.74/32 11.53s} 38. Bd1 {-3.96/30 4.23s}
Qb4 {+4.08/31 17.04s} 39. Qf1 {-3.85/31 0s} Qb2 {+4.00/33 15.71s}
40. Ra6 {-3.93/33 2.08s} Qb7 {+4.07/31 38.05s} 41. Ra3 {-3.92/36 0.001s}
Be8 {+4.04/24 7.13s} 42. Bf2 {-3.75/22 5.46s} Nc6 {+4.24/28 12.09s}
43. Kg1 {-4.06/28 25.31s} h6 {+4.39/28 0.001s} 44. Ba4 {-4.18/23 4.81s}
Nb4 {+4.41/29 11.88s} 45. Bxe8 {-4.12/25 0.002s} Rxe8 {+4.50/28 10.44s}
46. h4 {-4.19/27 6.62s} Nc2 {+4.39/30 4.27s} 47. Ra2 {-4.20/29 0s}
Qb3 {+4.58/28 9.94s} 48. Ra6 {-4.44/31 16.24s} Ne3 {+4.42/36 29.91s}
49. Bxe3 {-4.75/35 0.003s} fxe3 {+4.95/35 4.98s} 50. Ra1 {-5.11/33 12.74s}
Rb8 {+5.19/35 0.28s} 51. Kh1 {-5.59/33 16.54s} Qc2 {+5.86/32 20.08s}
52. Re1 {-6.16/32 0s} Rf8 {+6.29/30 11.76s} 53. Kg1 {-6.27/31 0.002s}
Rf6 {+6.45/28 5.16s} 54. h5 {-6.44/30 0.002s} e2 {+6.62/27 6.16s}
55. Rxe2 {-6.55/29 0.001s} Qxd3 {+6.78/28 4.39s} 56. Rf2 {-6.38/30 0.001s}
Qe3 {+6.69/27 6.81s} 57. Qh3 {-6.84/29 5.74s} Kh7 {+6.96/27 0.003s}
58. Qg4 {-6.90/25 6.14s} Qc1+ {+6.93/25 0.001s} 59. Kg2 {-7.09/27 15.22s}
Qxc4 {+7.17/27 0.002s} 60. Kg3 {-7.22/23 2.98s} Qf7 {+7.70/23 8.52s}
61. Rd2 {-7.11/25 6.28s} Qb3 {+7.50/26 4.00s} 62. Rd5 {-7.60/29 13.41s}
Qb6 {+7.81/30 7.35s} 63. Rd2 {-7.80/28 4.57s} c4 {+7.89/33 4.01s}
64. Rg2 {-7.23/24 0.34s} Qa7 {+8.09/32 12.47s} 65. Rf2 {-8.02/28 3.38s}
c3 {+8.17/28 3.12s} 66. Rc2 {-8.24/30 14.03s} Qb6 {+8.42/26 4.93s}
67. Rg2 {-8.35/27 0.002s} Qb3 {+8.46/28 8.62s} 68. Kh2 {-8.42/29 0.002s}
Qf7 {+8.62/25 3.82s} 69. Rc2 {-8.62/30 14.10s} Rxf3 {+9.00/28 8.18s}
70. Kg2 {-8.86/27 2.46s} Rf4 {+9.18/27 5.41s} 71. Qg6+ {-9.28/27 5.74s}
Qxg6+ {+9.56/27 5.19s} 72. hxg6+ {-9.62/27 6.88s, Black wins by adjudication}
0-1

```

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.03.19"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Stockfish 14.1 white"]
[Black "Stockfish 14.1 black"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/P1PPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[GameDuration "00:37:58"]
[PlyCount "226"]
[SetUp "1"]
[TimeControl "600+5"]

1. c4 {-1.45/28 17.02s} g6 {+1.55/26 18.93s} 2. Nc3 {-1.56/30 0.002s}
Bg7 {+1.55/26 8.92s} 3. g3 {-1.39/27 5.82s} c5 {+1.61/26 5.74s}
4. Bg2 {-1.41/27 19.69s} Nf6 {+1.60/28 0.020s} 5. Rb1 {-1.48/28 11.94s}
Nc6 {+1.49/29 6.81s} 6. Bb2 {-1.52/28 5.57s} O-O {+1.63/29 6.71s}
7. Nd5 {-1.52/27 5.40s} Ne8 {+1.82/26 7.40s} 8. Bxg7 {-1.65/28 26.64s}
Nxg7 {+1.75/28 7.71s} 9. Nf3 {-1.75/28 8.04s} b6 {+1.75/28 15.38s}
10. O-O {-1.63/26 0.35s} Bb7 {+1.64/28 47.25s} 11. Nc3 {-1.50/28 0.002s}
d6 {+1.54/31 30.50s} 12. Nh4 {-1.38/25 20.20s} Qd7 {+1.51/29 24.40s}
13. f4 {-1.49/26 12.90s} f5 {+1.49/30 8.54s} 14. d3 {-1.53/26 9.29s}
e6 {+1.32/27 25.83s} 15. Qd2 {-1.47/25 14.73s} Rae8 {+1.39/30 12.12s}
16. Rbe1 {-1.38/25 3.74s} Nh5 {+1.46/28 5.67s} 17. e4 {-1.40/25 13.05s}
fxe4 {+1.38/29 29.47s} 18. Nxe4 {-1.37/30 54.12s} Ng7 {+1.22/34 7.17s}
19. Ng5 {-1.25/29 5.60s} Nd4 {+1.26/33 8.33s} 20. Bxb7 {-1.25/30 12.19s}
Qxb7 {+1.42/32 2.25s} 21. Nhf3 {-1.11/32 26.18s} Nxf3+ {+1.33/32 11.76s}
22. Nxf3 {-1.22/31 26.61s} e5 {+1.36/33 0.004s} 23. Ng5 {-1.30/31 14.18s}
Nf5 {+1.28/33 27.86s} 24. fxe5 {-1.20/31 0.005s} dxe5 {+1.22/31 28.53s}
25. Ne4 {-1.18/30 22.42s} Qe7 {+1.28/28 0.004s} 26. Kg2 {-1.11/30 36.18s}
Nd4 {+1.07/29 2.87s} 27. Rxf8+ {-0.95/28 14.41s} Rxf8 {+1.07/30 2.09s}
28. Rf1 {-1.05/32 25.52s} Rf5 {+1.07/30 0.002s} 29. Rf2 {-0.98/30 14.75s}
Kg7 {+0.93/31 8.41s} 30. Qe3 {-0.94/33 70.01s} h6 {+1.14/32 10.60s}
31. Nc3 {-1.11/32 20.53s} Qb7+ {+1.15/30 2.21s} 32. Nd5 {-0.99/30 26.00s}
Qf7 {+1.12/30 8.96s} 33. Nc3 {-0.89/27 15.64s} Qb7+ {+0.97/33 24.00s}
34. Nd5 {-0.83/30 12.04s} Qf7 {+0.87/33 4.65s} 35. Nc3 {-0.82/31 8.42s}
Nc6 {+0.83/31 14.01s} 36. a3 {-0.86/27 12.25s} Qf6 {+1.04/32 3.34s}
37. h3 {-0.79/31 8.93s} Nd4 {+0.88/31 17.47s} 38. Ne4 {-0.78/30 1.80s}
Qe7 {+0.85/34 18.94s} 39. Nc3 {-0.95/33 3.54s} Qf6 {+0.76/34 36.60s}
40. Ne4 {-0.77/31 16.49s} Qe7 {+0.76/34 37.38s} 41. Nc3 {-0.75/37 0.014s}
Qe6 {+0.76/33 34.10s} 42. Ne4 {-0.72/36 12.76s} Kh7 {+0.80/33 0.006s}
43. Nc3 {-0.72/32 11.85s} Kg7 {+0.76/31 2.30s} 44. Ne4 {-0.72/37 16.41s}
Qd7 {+0.75/34 28.28s} 45. Nc3 {-0.70/32 36.25s} Nc6 {+0.71/33 0.001s}
46. Qe4 {-0.70/31 17.23s} Qe6 {+0.71/36 13.18s} 47. Rf3 {-0.70/29 11.04s}
Nd8 {+0.71/35 0.002s} 48. Rf2 {-0.68/31 28.10s} Nc6 {+0.75/35 0.001s}
49. Rf3 {-0.70/31 11.80s} h5 {+0.70/34 50.56s} 50. Qe3 {-0.76/35 0.003s}
Qf7 {+0.74/34 10.78s} 51. Ne4 {-0.63/35 18.86s} Qe7 {+0.70/32 12.67s}
52. Nc3 {-0.69/29 11.52s} Qf6 {+0.70/33 1.50s} 53. Qe4 {-0.64/32 30.84s}
Kh6 {+0.70/33 12.92s} 54. Qe3+ {-0.63/32 11.23s} Kg7 {+0.70/36 5.47s}
55. Nd5 {-0.62/31 0.002s} Qd6 {+0.70/39 9.01s} 56. Qe4 {-0.65/34 6.11s}
Qf8 {+0.70/38 6.24s} 57. Nc3 {-0.62/31 5.56s} Qf6 {+0.69/37 19.31s}
58. Qd5 {-0.61/34 0.005s} Rxf3 {+0.69/36 14.45s} 59. Qxf3 {-0.61/36 0.001s}
Nd4 {+0.68/34 13.55s} 60. Qe3 {-0.60/34 0.14s} Kh7 {+0.68/35 11.68s}
61. Ne4 {-0.56/31 8.00s} Qf5 {+0.62/34 20.41s} 62. a4 {-0.54/36 0.002s}
Kg7 {+0.57/33 11.14s} 63. Nd6 {-0.53/36 0.006s} Qe6 {+0.55/32 11.00s}
64. Ne4 {-0.51/33 0.073s} Qe7 {+0.49/34 11.36s} 65. Qe1 {-0.68/36 29.50s}
Qd7 {+0.49/34 16.13s} 66. Qe3 {-0.51/29 3.96s} Qf5 {+0.48/31 5.74s}
67. Nd6 {-0.51/37 6.69s} Qe6 {+0.44/32 3.13s} 68. Ne4 {-0.51/36 2.00s}
Qe7 {+0.43/35 8.00s} 69. Qe1 {-0.50/33 1.96s} Qd7 {+0.43/31 6.36s}
70. Qe3 {-0.50/35 1.45s} Qf7 {+0.38/32 23.83s} 71. Nc3 {-0.50/37 0.001s}
Qf5 {+0.41/37 18.53s} 72. Ne4 {-0.50/33 0.006s} Nc2 {+0.38/33 9.08s}
73. Qe2 {-0.51/33 8.45s} Nb4 {+0.38/34 0.001s} 74. Nd6 {-0.50/33 7.69s}
Qe6 {+0.38/34 0.007s} 75. Ne4 {-0.50/33 7.21s} Qf5 {+0.40/33 4.74s}
76. Nd6 {-0.47/31 8.87s} Qe6 {+0.42/34 0.008s} 77. Ne4 {-0.46/34 9.23s}
Qe7 {+0.38/35 0.007s} 78. Qe3 {-0.47/35 5.75s} Qf8 {+0.37/33 0.68s}
79. Qg5 {-0.60/30 7.07s} Nc6 {+0.37/37 8.16s} 80. Qe3 {-0.50/32 1.56s}
Nd4 {+0.41/35 17.46s} 81. Ng5 {-0.36/31 0.001s} Qf6 {+0.73/27 7.56s}
82. Nf3 {-0.32/28 5.66s} Qf5 {+0.28/36 33.44s} 83. Nh4 {-0.12/36 0.002s}
Qf6 {+0.20/27 1.41s} 84. Nf3 {-0.12/29 8.34s} Qf5 {+0.19/33 0.001s}
85. Nh4 {-0.12/34 6.39s} Qf7 {+0.19/37 0.002s} 86. Nf3 {-0.05/29 4.12s}
Qf6 {+0.10/34 4.25s} 87. Qe4 {-0.02/33 2.43s} Qxf3+ {0.00/32 3.09s}
88. Qxf3 {0.00/36 3.53s} Nxf3 {0.00/38 0.003s} 89. Kxf3 {0.00/43 7.35s}
Kf6 {0.00/41 0.001s} 90. Ke4 {0.00/43 7.26s} Ke6 {0.00/43 5.35s}
91. Ke3 {0.00/41 1.03s} Kf5 {0.00/46 4.95s} 92. Kf3 {0.00/45 6.35s}
a5 {0.00/49 0.002s} 93. Ke3 {0.00/49 5.09s} Ke6 {0.00/43 0.15s}
94. Ke4 {0.00/49 6.14s} Kf6 {0.00/46 2.49s} 95. Kd5 {0.00/49 38.93s}
Kf5 {0.00/43 6.66s} 96. Kc6 {0.00/45 0.007s} h4 {0.00/44 9.09s}
97. gxh4 {0.00/47 0.002s} Kf4 {0.00/45 5.31s} 98. Kxb6 {0.00/46 0.010s}
Ke3 {0.00/46 7.39s} 99. Kxc5 {0.00/46 0.003s} Kxd3 {0.00/47 6.64s}
100. Kb5 {0.00/46 0.59s} e4 {0.00/46 4.52s} 101. c5 {0.00/46 3.82s}
e3 {0.00/45 2.42s} 102. c6 {0.00/47 2.87s} e2 {0.00/46 8.33s}
103. c7 {0.00/49 0.001s} e1=Q {0.00/47 5.50s} 104. c8=Q {0.00/49 1.18s}
Qb4+ {0.00/45 10.98s} 105. Ka6 {0.00/50 3.06s} Qxa4 {0.00/47 1.97s}
106. Qd8+ {0.00/51 6.65s} Qd4 {0.00/47 0.005s} 107. Qxa5 {0.00/52 6.50s}
Qxh4 {0.00/49 0.31s} 108. Qa3+ {0.00/48 6.94s} Ke2 {0.00/50 0.001s}
109. Qb2+ {0.00/48 12.36s} Kf3 {0.00/51 6.44s} 110. Qc3+ {0.00/46 0.50s}
Kg2 {0.00/54 7.13s} 111. Qc2+ {0.00/49 0.003s} Kxh3 {0.00/52 6.15s}
112. Qxg6 {0.00/49 2.89s} Qg4 {0.00/53 5.62s} 113. Qxg4+ {0.00/72 42.85s}
Kxg4 {0.00/102 5.51s, Draw by insufficient mating material} 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
"Is there any evidence"? No, not unless you count anecdotes as evidence. The analysis is still intractable at this stage, and vastly fewer resources are redirected to odds analysis than to regular chess analysis.

While it is difficult to cite a negative, here are some comments from another site (note the question quoted is the stronger "solved", but the answer addresses the question at hand):

> ## Has chess been solved with different odds, definitively? For example pawn odds or knight odds or even queen odds?

> Has anyone wasted their time trying to prove this? No. Why should they? It is clear that a piece, especially a Queen odds results in a loss. Think computers if you will. Try being a piece down and play the very best computer moves - you lose - every single time. To not lose requires a non optimal move by the side with the material.

> As to a pawn odds game. It is not so clear. Clearly the strategy would be to play to eliminate all pawns followed by pieces and hope to exchange the last minor piece for the extra and final pawn. But that ignores that the extra pawn is also an offensive weapon and more weapons means more threats. However since gambits involve the sac of a pawn for a lead in development one can never be certain the extra pawn wins as it depends on which pawn and whether the pawn removed results in a lead in development sufficient to combat the material deficit.

# Answer
> 2 votes
FEN: rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPP1PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 (white without f2 pawn)

Stockfish\_22030820\_x64\_avx2: NNUE evaluation using nn-6877cd24400e.nnue enabled

61/65 **267,302,583k -1.95**

e2-e4 e7-e6 Ng1-f3 d7-d5 e4xd5 e6xd5 d2-d4 Bf8-e7 Nb1-c3 Ng8-f6 Bf1-d3 O-O O-O c7-c5 d4xc5 Be7xc5+ Kg1-h1 h7-h6 Bc1-f4 Nb8-c6 Bf4-g3 Rf8-e8 Bg3-h4 Bc8-e6 Qd1-d2 Bc5-e7 Bh4-f2 a7-a6 Nf3-d4 Nf6-g4 Nd4xe6 f7xe6 Bf2-g1 Be7-d6 Bd3-e2 Nc6-e5 Ra1-d1 Ng4-f6 Bg1-f2 Bd6-c7 Qd2-e1 Qd8-d7 Bf2-d4 Re8-f8 b2-b4 Ra8-d8 b4-b5 Qd7-d6 a2-a4 Rd8-e8 Qe1-g3 Nf6-d7 b5xa6 b7xa6

This is strong evidence that white is lost without the f2 pawn. Similar evidence points to a loss without the g2 and b2 pawns.

Bonus edit: When black gives pawn odds, black is lost. Stockfish's evaluation rises to +2.0 very quickly regardless of the pawn black gives up.

---
Tags: draw, odds
---


# Question
Title: Fastest algorithm to give mate with K+R vs K on infinite large board as function of starting position
Consider a board with only two edges that are perpendicular.

Something like:

```
.------------------------------------------------------
|                                         ^
|                                         |m
|<------------n---------------->bK  wK    v
|                                        wR
|
|
|

```

The edge on the right-side doesn't exist (or is very far away), so the task of white is to first drive the black king to the left, into the corner (or is it?).

Assume that both kings are on the edge and opposing each other as shown. Further more assume that there are n empty squares between the left-edge and the black king.

Lets use a 8x8 board to illustrate things below.

Below `n = 4` and the rook is placed such that the black king has only 1 row (`m = 1`). The optimal way to mate here is (with white to play):

```
[FEN "4k1K1/7R/8/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rg7 Kd8 2. Kf8 Kc8 3. Ke8 Kb8 4. Kd8 Ka8 5. Kc7 Ka7 6. Rg6 Ka8 7. Ra6#

```

Thus, we can conclude that it in the general case (where the rook is far to the right) it will take `n+3` moves for white to give mate. But note how white began with losing a tempo by playing a rook move.

Now consider the case where the rook is on the third row from the edge (`m = 2`).

If black uses the strategy to walk away straight from the `wK` (ie, remains on the second rank), he loses as fast as in the previous case:

```
[Variant "From Position"]
[FEN "8/4k1K1/7R/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rf6 Kd7 2. Kf7 Kc7 3. Ke7 Kb7 4. Kd7 Ka7 5. Kc7 Ka8 6. Ra6#

```

That is `n + constant`. A better strategy is to move to the edge at the moment the white king is on the second rank (so the rook can't be played to the second rank):

```
[Variant "From Position"]
[FEN "8/4k1K1/7R/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rf6 Kd7 2. Kf7 Kc8 3. Ke7 Kc7 4. Rh6 Kb8 5. Kd7 Kb7 6. Rg6 Ka8 7. Kc7 Ka7 8. Rh6 Ka8 9. Ra6#

```

The pattern starts different, with `1... Kd7` as opposed to `1... Kd8` because after `1... Kd8? 2. Rf7!` resulting in a much faster win for large `n`.

In fact, an 8x8 board is already too small to properly investigate the best algorithm for large `n` and `m=2`. At first sight the number of moves is going to be `2n + constant`, but of course, white has the trick to play the rook to the *left* of its king!

```
[Variant "From Position"]
[FEN "8/5k1K/7R/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 17 9"]

1. Ra6 Ke7 2. Kg7 Kd7 3. Kf7 Kc7 4. Ke7 Kb7 5. Rh6 Kc7 6. Rg6 Kc8 7. Kd6 Kb7 8. Kd7 Kb8 9. Kc6 Ka7 10. Kc7 Ka8 11. Ra6#

```

Effectively still shifting one position to the left per move (or else the rook goes to the second rank), and it is in fact mate in `n + 6`.

Now, given the relative positions of the three pieces from the last starting position (`bK` and `wK` opposing and `wR` on the same file as the `wK`; white to move), with `n` empty squares on the left of the `bK` and the `wR` being `m` rows from the edge (`m=2` in the last position).

**Then in how many moves can white give mate on said infinitely large board, for large `n` and any `m > 0` ?**

One more remark though - notice this interesting zigzag strategy of white where the king goes in front of its own rook in order to achieve a `2n + c` with `m = 2`:

```
[Variant "From Position"]
[FEN "4k3/6K1/7R/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kf6 Kd7 2. Kf7 Kd8 3. Ke6 Kc7 4. Ke7 Kc8 5. Kd6 Kb7 6. Kd7 Kb8 7. Kc6 Ka7 8. Kc7 Ka8 9. Ra6#

```

Which thus can be improved for large `n` (the above *is* an optimal mate in 9 though), but which returns shortly with `m = 3`:

```
[Variant "From Position"]
[FEN "8/4k3/6K1/7R/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kf5 Kd6 2. Kf6 Kd7 3. Ke5 Kc6 4. Ke6 Kc7 5. Kd5 Kd7 6. Rh7+ Ke8 7. Ke6 Kd8 8. Rf7 Kc8 9. Kd6 Kb8 10. Kc6 Ka8 11. Kb6 Kb8 12. Rf8#

```

where mate in 12 is indeed the fastest possible (on 8x8).

# Answer
It is known that White can force mate from any starting position of K+R vs. K on a quarter-infinite board. It's probably too hard a problem to ask for an exact optimal strategy, but it's not too hard to show that -- as **Carlo Wood** suggests in a comment -- there are constants a,c such that mate can be forced in at most a\*n+c moves from any position with both Kings in the in the n-by-n corner. (We needn't worry about the Rook because it can get anywhere in two moves.)

The basic idea is to use the Rook, supported by its King, to limit the defending King to a rectangle near the corner, and then to shrink that rectangle one step at a time, each step taking at most a constant number of moves. Eventually the King is confined to an Nx1 rectangle, and gets mated in about N further moves.

One wrinkle is that the Rook might be farther from its own King than from the defender's. But when the Rook is attacked, it can retreat say six squares in one direction, and then, when attacked again, turn 90 degrees and retreat another six squares. During the other 10 moves, the Rook's King approaches it *diagonally*, while the defender has to move on Rook lines and thus advances only six squares diagonally. So eventually the Rook is reunited with its King and the squeeze play can start.

According to Berlekamp, Conway, and Guy's *Winning Ways*, mathematician Simon Norton asked this problem for the specific position Ka1,Rb2/Kc3, asking "What is the smallest board (if any) that White can win on if Black is given a win if he walks off the North or East edges of the board?" The *Winning Ways* authors suggest that a 9x11 board already suffices. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Winning\_Ways\_for\_Your\_Mathematical\_Plays/\_0laDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=king+and+rook+%22quarter+infinite%22&pg=PA667&printsec=frontcover

I don't know whether this has been verified; it should be easy with the same algorithm that by now has completely solved all positions with at most 7 men on an 8x8 board.

P.S. It seems that White barely wins Simon Norton's position Ka1,Rb2/Kc3 on a board with 9 columns and 11 rows starting with 1 Re2 (or Rb11) Kd4 2 Re11 Kd5 3 Kb2 Kd6 (Kd4 lasts a few moves longer but ends up in much the same place after 4 Kc2 etc.) 4 Kc3 Kd7 5 Kd4 Kd8 6 Ke5 Kd9 7 Kf6 Kd10 8 Ri11 Ke10 9 Kg7 Kf10 10 Kh8 Kg10 11 Ki9. Now the Black King is securely penned in an 8-by-10 rectangle, and can be gradually restricted further, e.g. 11 . . . Kg9 (else 12 Ki8) 12 Ri10 Kg8 (else 13 Ki7) 13 Ki8! (easier than 13 Rh10 Kg9) Kg9 14 Ra10 followed by 13 Kh8 or 13 Ra9, etc.
> 5 votes

# Answer
One can apply a regression to this problem, and in your case you use the n and m as features.

Made an experiment on 8x8 board, generate some 50 random positions to create a dataset. Do regression with sklearn with 2 and 3 features.

**Dataset**

```
                            fen  n  m  k  dtm
 8/8/8/8/8/4k1K1/7R/8 w - - 0 1  5  6  2   12
8/8/8/2k2K2/6R1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1  3  4  3    9
 8/8/8/8/k1K5/3R4/8/8 w - - 0 1  1  5  2    2
 8/8/k4K2/6R1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1  1  3  5    7
 8/8/8/1k4K1/7R/8/8/8 w - - 0 1  2  4  5   11
 8/8/8/k2K4/4R3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1  1  4  3    2
 8/8/8/8/8/8/3k2K1/7R w - - 0 1  4  7  3   10
...

```

```
n = black king distance from "a" file, if black king is in a-file, n=1
m = black king distance from "8th" rank, if black king is in rank 7, m=2
k = distance between black and white kings
dtm = distance to mate

```

### Regression results

**2 features n and m**

```
all data: 50

2 features

train r_square: 0.44598
coeff: [1.53505154 0.30384766]
interc: 2.5610937369050166

test pred: [11, 5, 10, 8, 11, 5,  9, 4, 11, 6, 6, 5, 7, 7, 6]
test true: [ 8, 7,  9, 9, 10, 8, 13, 5,  7, 7, 8, 2, 8, 5, 4]

test rmse: 2.21

formula:
dtm = 1.535 * n + 0.304 * m + 2.56

```

**3 features n, m, k**

```
all data: 50

3 features

train r_square: 0.78963
coeff: [2.30174642 0.48114933 1.9430957 ]
interc: -6.388479601770181

test pred: [6, 8, 9, 7, 9, 12, 4, 10, 6, 10, 6, 7, 5, 10, 9]
test true: [6, 7, 7, 7, 8, 12, 5,  8, 5, 12, 8, 8, 4, 10, 6]

test rmse: 1.43

formula:
dtm = 2.302 * n + 0.481 * m + 1.943 * k - 6.3885

```

Of course using 3 features is more accurate with a lower rmse (root mean squared error) of only 1.43 because king distance is critical to mate the opponent king.

From the used dataset the highest weight of 2.302 is given by the distance of black king from the edge of the board. This is then followed by the king-king distance at 1.943.

### Example

```
8/8/3k2K1/7R/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
n = 4
m = 3
k = 3

formula:
dtm = 2.302 * n + 0.481 * m + 1.943 * k - 6.3885

prediction:
dtm = 2.302*4 + 0.481*3 + 1.943*3 - 6.3885
dtm = 10

fen true dtm is 9.

error = 10-9 or 1

```

*Edit*
There is a program called fairy stockfish at https://github.com/ianfab/Fairy-Stockfish where you can setup a board larger than 8x8. This can be used to generate a dataset to give distance to mate for a given position.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: problems, mathematics, rook-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Why is two pawns defending a outpost regarded as a strong outpost?
Quoting Irving Chernev:

> A brilliant sacrifice which must be accepted. Refusing the Pawn means that Black could never free himself by … d5. It would also enable White to play 16 ♘c3 next move (attacking the Queen) and thus gain time for 17 ♘d5, establishing a strongly supported outpost.
>
> Chernev, Irving. The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played (p. 37).

I have read this multiple times in this book, but I don't quite grasp why an outpost guarded by two pawns is considered stronger than an outpost guarded by only one?

# Answer
> 10 votes
An outpost guarded by two pawns is stronger for two reasons.

First, if the piece is guarded by two pawns, that means it is not possible for the opponent to win a pawn by attacking it with pieces. If a knight on d5 was supported *only* by a pawn on e4, then Black could play something like Nxd5 exd5 Bxd5. But with two pawns guarding the outpost, Black can't win material no matter how many pieces are attacking d5; the best they can get is an even trade.

Second, an outpost can be undermined by attacking the supporting pawn. If there are two pawns supporting it, this obviously becomes more difficult to do.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Like what @D M has said, an outpost guarded by 2 pawns is extremely strong due to it being hard to undermine and black cannot get any material advantage of position here.

Another reason I would like to add on, is that this double pawn outpost actually baits some to take the knight on d5, which actually just results in white controlling more space in the center and improving his pawn structure, which you probably would not want. However not taking it also allows white to keep that piece there to prevent further development of black and possibly launch and attack since the knight controls `e7` and `c7`

---
Tags: positional-play, pawn-structure
---


# Question
Title: Why should the knight maneuver to d5 in this position?
In *How to reassess your chess* from Jeremy Silman there is this position about knight outposts:

```
[FEN "2r2rk1/pbqnbppp/1p3n2/1Pp1p3/2P1P3/5NP1/PBQN1PBP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]

```

The author argues that the knight should maneuver to `d5` with the plan `Rfe1, Nb1, Nc3, Nd5`.

I understand that `d5`seems like a nice square for the knight. But once the knight reaches `d5`, couldn't black just trade its bishop for it and white would have wasted 5 moves on nothing?

Why is this maneuver still worth it?

# Answer
> 15 votes
> I understand that d5 seems like a nice square for the knight

It's a FANTASTIC square for a knight. It's a hole in black's position which means it can never be kicked away by a pawn. It's centralized which means it's affecting a larger portion of the board. It's in the enemy's camp and is either 1 or 2 moves away from attacking any square on the board. It's a checking distance away from the black king.

So that leaves us with the last point: can't black just capture this knight? Well yes, but then you get something almost as good: A protected passed d pawn! This pawn means you're instantly winning any king and pawn endgame. So all trades from that point on are probably good for you. It's never a weakness because it's firmly protected by another pawn. Read Silman's chapter on pawns to get more of an idea. Finally, there's another good point here which is after recapturing with cxd5, we have a new great square for our other knight: c4! Nfd2-\>Nc4 is now one of the best squares on the board for a knight for a lot of the same reasons that d5 was so good too.

By the way, was this a Fischer game? I feel like I recognize it from My 60 Memorable Games but maybe I'm misremembering...

# Answer
> 11 votes
> Why is this maneuver still worth it?

Let's have a look and see, filling in some reasonable moves for black

```
[FEN "2r2rk1/pbqnbppp/1p3n2/1Pp1p3/2P1P3/5NP1/PBQN1PBP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[Startply "9"]

1. Rfe1 Rfe8 2. Nb1 Bf8 3. Nc3 Rcd8 4. Nd5 Bxd5 5. exd5

```

White's position has been transformed. The protected passed d pawn means that white is strong favourite to win any endgame, there is strong pressure on the black e5 pawn and the cramped nature of black's position (thanks to the pawn on d5) gives white good chances of also launching a kingside attack.

# Answer
> 6 votes
To add to the excellent points made by NoseKnowsAll, observe that White is putting Black in the position of having to accept a strong disadvantage and Black can only choose which one. Notice too that Black could try for a similar manoeuvre with ..Rfe8, ..N-f8-e6-d4 but he is just one move too late because the WN arrives at d5 with tempo. I suspect that both players have had this outpost business in mind for some time and that White has been able to surpass Black in the matter of timing. That is how GMs play chess.

# Answer
> 0 votes
To add on to all the other answers, yes the `d5` square is an *excellent* square for the knight as an outpost, no other pawns can kick it away, but another reason why this is so good for white is that not only improves white's pawn structure, you can actually see that black's `e5` pawn is a bit awkward, moving the `f6` knight to advance the pawn will just give white a chance to attack. White also has ideas of `nd2` and pressuring the `e5` pawn or attacking the king side with the queen and bishop somehow, or even pushing the `a2` pawn. Additionally, the knight on `d7` cannot really go anywhere

```
[FEN "2r2rk1/pbqnbppp/1p3n2/1Pp1p3/2P1P3/5NP1/PBQN1PBP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[Startply "9"]

1. Rfe1 Rfe8 2. Nb1 Bf8 3. Nc3 Rcd8 4. Nd5 Bxd5 5. exd5 Bd6 6. Nd2 h6 7.  h4 Re7 8. a4

```

The above is just an example

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: When and where is it a good idea to make a pawn break in a closed centre position?
I've read that you want to make pawn breaks by advancing your pawn on the file next to your most advanced pawn in these closed centre positions. What exactly is the reason behind this. Is it just to open up the files for the rooks and why specifically with this pawn? I'm finding this topic incredibly confusing so any help will be appreciated.

# Answer
Opening a file for your rooks is one good reason to play a pawn break. Although, you should make sure that opening that file doesn't help your opponent's pieces more than it helps yours. As for breaking through near your most advanced pawn, this isn't really a rule that has to be followed closely. But the idea behind it is that once your advanced pawn becomes unblocked, it can push forward into the enemy position. Maybe this will allow it to become a passed pawn. Or, it could open lines for the rest of your pieces to break through. This may be more dangerous for your opponent than if you had broken through further back on the board.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The only reason is that you gain an advantage by doing it.

In some cases it is just to avoid losing advantage.

Pawns diagonally across from each other are NOT a break. Breaks come when you take pawns or push a pawn where it can take two others if they do not capture your pawn.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Basic rule is keep your pawns together or near if possible, especially towards the endgame. If you have an advanced pawn, and another one next door, the obvious thing is bring it up. Notice that with two pawns together on the 6th rank, they are very hard to keep at least one of them from queening.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: pawns, pawn-structure, closed-position
---


# Question
Title: Is white winning if it gets to play the first two moves (an extra tempo)?
Has there been any analysis done on if white wins if it gets a free move in the starting position (let’s say `e4`)? Then, the game continues as normal.

From a human perspective it seems playing e4 and d4 as the first two moves would give white an advantage. But is it enough to be winning?

Edit: After thinking for over 1.4 trillion nodes, Sf dev thinks the following after white plays e4 and d4. Not conclusive, but worth further investigation with such a high evaluation.

67/92 **1,495,349,364k -1.34**

e7-e6 Bf1-d3 d7-d5 Nb1-c3 Bf8-b4 e4-e5 b7-b6 h2-h4 Qd8-d7 Qd1-g4 Bb4-f8 h4-h5 Bc8-a6 Bd3xa6 Nb8xa6 a2-a3 h7-h6 b2-b4 Ng8-e7 Nc3-d1 c7-c5 c2-c3 c5-c4 Ng1-e2 Na6-c7 a3-a4 O-O-O b4-b5 f7-f6 Bc1-f4 f6-f5 Qg4-f3 g7-g5 h5xg6/ep Ne7xg6 g2-g3 Bf8-e7 Nd1-e3 Be7-g5 Rh1-h5 Rd8-g8 Ke1-d2 Ng6xf4 Ne2xf4 Qd7-e8 Rh5-h1 a7-a6 b5xa6 Nc7xa6 Kd2-e2 Bg5xf4 Qf3xf4 Kc8-b7 Rh1-h4 Na6-c7 Qf4-f3 Qe8-c6 a4-a5

# Answer
> 10 votes
Unlikely.

This position has been analyzed in the Lichess cloud analysis with Stockfish 14.1. At depth 41, White has an advantage of +0.9 - which is significantly larger than the starting position, but not enough to consistently win.

Edit: Per this link, Stockfish wins against itself at bullet time controls about 25% of the time when the eval is +0.9. At long time controls - which would certainly be the case if we're looking for an objective evaluation of whether this position is winning - games are drawn more often, so it's probable that the position after 1.e4 with White to move is not winning for White.

# Answer
> 3 votes
For humans especially, `e4` `d4` without the opponent playing any moves is *extremely* helpful for taking control over the center and to easily develop the knights and bishops fast.

The 1 extra move for humans will most probably result in a higher win rate as the headstart may crush black and make black feel uncomfortable due to the lack of possible development and space, but for computers its probably a different story and the advantage will not be that high

For computers, it is most likely that white cannot win consistently or with extremely high win rates, but it gives white a slight advantage, *but* we're humans, who *wouldn't* want another free move? :)

After computer analysis

* At depth 49 (cannot go any higher), white is winning by **\+ 0.3 advantage** by Stockfish 14 cloud analysis here, if given no headstart
* At depth 41 however, white is winning by **\+ 0.9 advantage** here if given the 1 move headstart
* At depth 30-41+, the advantage goes over 1.0 and possibly can reach **+1.4 advantage**
* Yet there is also a chance this can go down to 0.0, which highly unlikely though as white *should* win more games than when using black

The difference is quite significant, but black can still find ways to draw or even win if played well, so it is not very likely that it is winning for white, for computers it might be, for humans unlikely, as we always make mistakes

# Answer
> 3 votes
According to stockfish 14.1 white wins.
Match conditions:

* Each engine uses 2 threads.
* Time Control is 90m + 30s increment.
* Ponder ON
* Start fen is rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

Game duration: "03:57:35"

What a wonderful game. White got the space advantage early but black managed to launch a dangerous kingside attack as in the king's indian defense opening formation. However white has somewhat neutralized it plus a queenside play.

```
[Event "white has e4 + side to move, ponder ON"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.03.28"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Stockfish 14.1.2"]
[Black "Stockfish 14.1.1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[GameDuration "03:57:35"]
[PlyCount "128"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Termination "adjudication"]
[TimeControl "5400+30"]

1. d4 {+1.36/39 135.6s} c6 {-1.21/38 206.3s} 2. Bd3 {+1.40/38 0.002s}
d6 {-1.22/37 78.47s} 3. Nf3 {+1.27/38 27.62s} e5 {-1.11/37 52.92s}
4. O-O {+1.24/40 160.1s} Nd7 {-1.08/37 137.9s} 5. Re1 {+1.38/39 113.1s}
Ngf6 {-1.15/38 0.002s} 6. c4 {+1.28/35 102.7s} g6 {-1.20/40 280.2s}
7. d5 {+1.16/40 24.04s} Bg7 {-1.24/38 100.2s} 8. Nc3 {+1.29/41 255.5s}
O-O {-1.06/41 568.3s} 9. h3 {+1.44/36 342.7s} cxd5 {-1.35/42 547.7s}
10. cxd5 {+1.30/43 0.001s} Ne8 {-1.19/37 272.7s} 11. a4 {+1.50/34 133.8s}
h6 {-1.23/39 102.9s} 12. a5 {+1.44/38 271.1s} f5 {-1.48/39 0.002s}
13. exf5 {+1.50/37 68.86s} gxf5 {-1.38/36 25.74s} 14. Nd2 {+1.50/38 144.7s}
Qh4 {-1.34/41 201.0s} 15. Bf1 {+1.58/35 99.56s} f4 {-1.28/36 7.31s}
16. Nf3 {+1.49/39 188.5s} Qh5 {-1.30/39 122.7s} 17. Ra4 {+1.39/37 18.41s}
b6 {-1.47/37 118.8s} 18. b4 {+1.62/38 112.0s} a6 {-1.48/37 200.6s}
19. axb6 {+1.67/38 217.4s} Nxb6 {-1.49/39 0.001s} 20. Ra5 {+1.60/38 316.6s}
Bf6 {-1.50/39 153.2s} 21. Ne4 {+1.75/39 219.7s} Bf5 {-1.89/39 219.3s}
22. Ba3 {+1.89/41 438.7s} Rf7 {-1.79/45 0.002s} 23. b5 {+2.07/39 76.60s}
Bxe4 {-1.87/42 130.3s} 24. Rxe4 {+2.24/39 15.36s} axb5 {-2.26/46 174.9s}
25. Rxa8 {+2.23/42 0s} Nxa8 {-2.35/43 164.0s} 26. Bxb5 {+2.28/43 74.38s}
Rg7 {-2.54/40 58.74s} 27. Rb4 {+2.57/38 52.25s} Nac7 {-2.41/41 71.34s}
28. Bf1 {+2.65/39 171.2s} Qxh3 {-2.34/41 153.8s} 29. Qd3 {+2.43/39 19.80s}
Qh5 {-2.17/37 42.16s} 30. Rb8 {+2.47/37 105.3s} Be7 {-2.90/48 1058.0s}
31. Bb4 {+2.92/47 38.86s} Kf7 {-1.95/35 66.24s} 32. Rb7 {+3.16/40 38.41s}
Kg8 {-2.11/41 170.6s} 33. Rb8 {+3.04/44 33.88s} Kf7 {-2.48/37 77.99s}
34. Rb7 {+3.12/42 183.5s} Kg8 {-2.66/41 116.4s} 35. Nd2 {+3.07/46 124.1s}
Qg4 {-2.75/38 77.56s} 36. Rb8 {+3.04/44 18.64s} f3 {-2.97/39 78.67s}
37. g3 {+3.08/44 69.91s} h5 {-3.00/39 0.001s} 38. Ba5 {+3.10/43 124.1s}
h4 {-3.19/42 32.63s} 39. Bxc7 {+3.25/42 76.84s} Kf7 {-3.19/42 36.22s}
40. Ba5 {+3.23/42 137.3s} hxg3 {-3.24/42 0.002s} 41. Qxf3+ {+3.12/43 153.4s}
Nf6 {-3.19/41 0.003s} 42. Qxg4 {+3.35/43 296.4s} gxf2+ {-3.31/43 0.001s}
43. Kxf2 {+3.19/47 445.9s} Rxg4 {-3.29/45 0.001s} 44. Bc4 {+3.34/46 77.89s}
Rd4 {-3.39/39 19.81s} 45. Ke2 {+3.38/40 127.3s} Nxd5 {-3.39/42 247.7s}
46. Rb5 {+3.43/50 0.002s} Rxc4 {-3.46/43 63.02s} 47. Nxc4 {+3.55/49 229.8s}
Ke6 {-3.53/43 34.39s} 48. Ne3 {+3.64/50 131.5s} Nf4+ {-3.65/50 187.1s}
49. Kf3 {+3.71/52 0.001s} Bg5 {-3.65/45 33.68s} 50. Bb4 {+3.71/54 81.70s}
Bd8 {-3.66/43 0.002s} 51. Rb8 {+3.73/48 88.85s} Be7 {-3.78/43 15.52s}
52. Rb6 {+3.87/44 220.1s} Nh3 {-3.89/45 0s} 53. Nc4 {+3.87/48 54.25s}
Ng5+ {-3.92/41 7.38s} 54. Ke3 {+3.87/44 70.50s} Nf7 {-3.92/37 42.29s}
55. Ra6 {+3.96/43 52.45s} Kd5 {-4.15/202 234.5s} 56. Nb6+ {+4.23/49 0.001s}
Ke6 {-4.20/45 49.63s} 57. Nc8 {+4.31/41 38.55s} Bf8 {-4.30/42 10.47s}
58. Ke4 {+4.59/39 58.18s} Ng5+ {-4.27/40 8.92s} 59. Kd3 {+4.69/39 52.72s}
Nf7 {-4.40/40 48.62s} 60. Kc4 {+4.71/36 0.001s} Ng5 {-4.31/38 112.7s}
61. Bxd6 {+52.63/33 37.88s} Bxd6 {-48.61/38 96.52s} 62. Rxd6+ {+55.35/44 0.001s}
Kf5 {-4.33/32 23.07s} 63. Kd3 {+56.76/44 26.45s} e4+ {-59.05/40 92.55s}
64. Ke3 {+152.65/44 0s} Ke5 {-58.71/38 26.43s, White wins by adjudication} 1-0

```

---
Tags: opening, analysis
---


title: Computerized Chess games Analysis

text:
# Question
Title: Computerized Chess games Analysis
I am looking for the ultimate chess game analysis tool I used lucas chess which is great but lack some details, I also tried creatica https://chessgame-analyzer.creatica.org/ which is good also but again lack some ideas and information. are there any other tools that are free and better than the two above and or have some other point of view and can work offline.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Analyzing a game of chess (in the sense of the term you've explained in the comments) is a complex endeavour. As with most things that involve some degree of complexity, it can't be fully automated. You'll need:

* Knowledge of the subject matter
* Dedicating a certain amount of time and effort

There are certainly tools that can **assist** the user, but in no way **replace** the user. In terms of quality of analysis, they can help a weaker player close the gap with a stronger one, or they can reduce the amount of time it takes to get the desired result. But they cannot do all of the work for you!

In other words, at least in 2022, we can't try to analyze a chess game by "pressing a button" and expect a high quality result. Some sites offer automated analysis features for full games but the results pale in comparison with what an experienced player can do, specially if he's making a proper use of the right tools.

So, what are these tools?

With a game **database**, you can solve most of your opening questions. They can help you learn about the theoretical status of a certain line, alternatives to the moves played in the game and the context for other instances in which the line was played (i.e: when was it played, where, by whom?...)

With a **chess engine** (like Stockfish), you can get a very good approximation of what the outcome of a game will be from a specific position **assuming both sides will play optimally** after that moment. This means engines won't consider moves that may look interesting to a human but have a refutation. A complete analysis which intends to be useful should include that type of moves. In other words, an engine will give you the answers but you're still the one who has to ask the questions. It's like a calculator: it's of no use if you don't know what numbers to input!

An **endgame tablebase** is the "deterministic" version of a chess engine. They will give you the exact outcome (with optimal play) from any posiiton with 7 or fewer pieces. But I think you'll hardly ever need to resort to them in practice.

Finally, you may want to use some **game storage software** to have your analysis properly saved and ordered. Creating studies on Lichess is probably the best free option available.

---
Tags: analysis, learning, software
---


# Question
Title: How to understand black's advantage in this line of the Polerio defense?
In the following line of the Polerio defense, black has an advantage close to -2 according to the engine:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb3 Nxb3 7. axb3 h6 8. Nf3 e4 9. Qe2 Be7 10. Ne5 O-O 11. d4 exd3 12. Qxd3 Qxd5 13. Qxd5 Nxd5 14. O-O

```

I tried it out against an engine but kept making moves that equalised, because I really don't understand what black has here, or what I should be playing for with the black pieces. Obviously I see that I have better development and a maybe slightly better pawn structure, but I don't see how that translates into a coherent plan where black has the better chances.

Is the idea here simply that black has the bishop pair and a slightly better pawn structure and therefore should win the endgame after enough trades?

# Answer
So in the final position, black actually has a really strong knight on `d5`, and if white tries to kick it away with `c4`, your just making your `b3` pawn extremely weak, so black can target it, and pick up *both* the `c4` and `b3` pawns after moving your knight to`b6` and then formulating a plan to attack the pawns with `bf5`.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb3 Nxb3 7. axb3 h6 8. Nf3 e4 9. Qe2 Be7 10. Ne5 O-O 11. d4 exd3 12. Qxd3 Qxd5 13. Qxd5 Nxd5 14. O-O Bd6 15. Nf3 Bf5 16. Na3 Bxa3 17. bxa3 Bxc2

```

The above is just an example of what might happen, but they are not the strongest moves, as you can see black tried to exploit the doubled `b` pawn with his light-squared bishop, which can be tricky to defend against

And yes yes, white has a knight on `e5`, but black can kick it away with `bd6`, if white tries `f4`, your just asking for trouble. Black has a bishop pair and you have just opened up your king to both diagonals.

Plus in this position, black has gained a tempo, right now white just castled, so black can develop with `f5` to pressure the pawn with a tempo, or attack the knight. Then black basically has a few extra moves to play with
> 3 votes

# Answer
Black certainly has advantages. As you say, two Bishops, slightly better Pawns and a lead in development. But the position will not win itself and it would be very easy to give the advantage away. For example 14...Bd6? lets White off the hook after 15.Nc4. Just attacking a piece does not always win a tempo.

I would be inclined to play 14...Bf6 and if 15.Nf3 then 15...Bg4 16.Nbd2 Re8. There is no need to always to play forcing moves. Find moves that improve your position and don't let White improve theirs. Just develop to good squares and ask White to find a move.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy
---


title: n by n board editor

text:
# Question
Title: n by n board editor
I was trying to do some animations using a chessboard and it turns out that I need an *n*-by-*n* board editor (for some *n* less than 16). Are there any such editors available online? I would like to have some ready-made links.

I don't even want to analyze any positions, I just want to place some pieces of my choice.

# Answer
> 3 votes
This board editor is excellent https://musketeerchess.net/tools/boardpainter/.

---
Tags: online, chessboards
---


# Question
Title: Is there a mathematical way to determine whether going to depth n+1 would be x% likely to recommend the move at depth n?
I have a chess GUI which I've recently been updating to do preemptive searches (that is, depth searches for all possible opponent moves) that I'd like to speed up, since the bot searches go to at least depth 16 for every move, and each move runs a new Stockfish 11 command line (with minimum settings) in a separate thread.

Now, I have some solutions for the threading issue, but one would involve knowing more chess math than I know now.

I noticed that, after a certain search depth, the PV's first move, and then first few moves, really don't change that often, and I'd like to know if there's a formula out there, similar to one that I used to calculate winning odds.

I considered the following:

* Do a depth search of n on the position after hypothetical opponent move m.
* Retrieve the pv for depth n.
* Append it to a corpus.
* Do a depth search of n+1 on the same position.
* Retrieve the pv for depth n+1.
* If a text prediction algorithm using the corpus will produce n+1\[pv\]\[0:x\], such that x is sufficiently large (needs more math) to be reliable, cease the depth searches and recommend n+1\[pv\]\[0\].

I'm thinking that there might be a simpler way of reaching a similar outcome, since pv\[0\] would have to arise every time in the text prediction.

What other Stockfish info might I want to consider in generating a statistical confidence that the recommendation need not search any deeper?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I did a study using stockfish 14.1 on all positions (6 games) played Hikaru in the 2022 FIDE Grand Prix Leg 1.

**Procedure**

* Get all positions where Hikaru is to move.
* Analyze those positions with stockfish 14.1 at different base depths and depths+1 and save the bestmoves.

**Results**

```
    base_depth  adv_depth  match(%)
0            8          9  77.06
1            9         10  80.09
2           10         11  85.28
3           11         12  83.55
4           12         13  85.71
5           13         14  84.42
6           14         15  92.64
7           15         16  85.28
8           16         17  88.31
9           17         18  89.61
10          18         19  87.01

```

The match column is the percentage that the bestmove in base\_depth is similar to the bestmove in base\_depth+1 or adv\_depth.

The highest match is in base\_depth 14 at 92.64%.

**Plot**

Run a linear regression on that data using statsmodel and comes up with the following formula and margin of error of +/-6% at 95% confidence level and an R-squared of 0.641.

```
margin of error = rmse * 1.96

```

**Formula**

```
match_rate_pct = 1.1218 x base_depth + 70.1277  [+/- margin of error]

```

**Example**

```
If base depth is 17 the approximate match_rate will be:

match_rate_pct = 1.1218 x base_depth + 70.1277
match_rate_pct = 1.1218 x 17 + 70.1277

match_rate_pct = 89.2% +/- 6%

min match_rate_pct = 83.2%
max match_rate_pct = 95.2%

```

---
Tags: analysis, stockfish, programming, depth
---


# Question
Title: Are there people that have played at 2000 OTB to master level by focusing on playing exclusively blitz rated games online?
Are there chess players for example, that have gotten to say, Lichess 2700+ Blitz online without ever playing OTB and then as soon as they started OTB, they were playing at a 2000 to master level?

# Answer
Well, I'm not sure if there's anyone who has reached from 2000 OTB rating to master level by just playing blitz online. But there's an Indian player (**V. Pranav**) who used to play a lot of online blitz on chess.com. He was around `2300` in 2020 October and right now has around 2900 blitz rating. His highest being 3000.

After the lockdown got over in India, he started playing a few OTBs and managed to get his IM title. Earlier in 2020, he was around 2250 in classical and now he is almost 2500. You can check this out here.

EDIT:

V. Pranav became India's 75th GM on 8th August 2022.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, blitz, otb-chess
---


# Question
Title: Does chess intuition take over when you can't see all of the moves ahead? What does chess intuition look like?
This is a broad question about intuition and chess.

I imagine that there is a limit to how far ahead even the best chess masters can see into the future, and how far they can stretch their memory. When this limit is reached during a chess match, how do expert chess players make their decisions? I guess that the answer must be "chess intuition", and I am hoping that the masters among the community can explain to me what chess intuition looks like (I'm imagining some innate feeling for what the right move to make is based on past experiences/general chess principles) and how it factors into the games of chess masters.

To make a comparison with another field-- intuition plays a huge role in doing mathematics. Having a feel for what the right strategy/approach at any given time and being able to update that feel after making mistakes are two crucial skills to have as a mathematician. The Fields medalist Charles Fefferman once famously compared math to playing chess with the devil: the devil is much better at chess than you, but the catch is that you get infinitely many take-backs. These take-backs are how you develop intuition for a problem beyond what you already know.

In chess, of course, there are no take-backs during a match. So, what does intuition look like during a chess match, and what is its role in chess matches?

EDIT: I am asking about a few things at once: the internal experience, when intuition is needed, how much intuition has to be relied upon. Towards this last question, how often (and when) will chess experts make moves essentially “on faith”, in that they don’t know where they will lead or exactly what good they will provide, but are primarily acting on feeling or gut sense? (thanks to @Michael West for the clarifying question)

# Answer
This is a very interesting question. I may be just marginally qualified to answer it. My highest-ever rating was about 2300. I am a successful research mathematician in an applied area. There are plenty of people around who are better than me in both respects. On an absolute scale my achievements are fairly modest, but not many of my betters post on SE.

I can offer a couple of significant quotations. One is, I think, from Tigran Petrosian, but someone may correct me. I believe he said that he always knew when he was in form because at those times he would always find himself playing the move that he first thought of. The other is from the BBC "Master Game" TV show of some years ago, when IM Bill Hartston was surprised by a move and exclaimed "Why didnt I see that?" and then, after realising that the move was not actually all that good, "Ah, so thats why I didn't see it!"

Both players expected their intuition to present only good moves to their consciousness for approval. In blitz or simultaneous displays, the time spent on approving and checking the move may be very little. In a serious game, the checking will take a long time, especially if there is some risk involved, but very often I find that the move that I want to play can actually be played, even when there seems to be a problem with it. If the checking does take you past your calculating limit, some players will still go with their intuition, and others will settle for a safer alternative. It depends on your character, how you feel that day, and the tournament standings.

It feels like a matter of direct perception. As a complete novice you see where the pieces stand and have to work out what moves and captures are possible. A bit later you just see them, and later still you "just see" pins and forks and weaknesses. You see an exposed King and are sure there is a mate there, but you dont yet see the exact sequence of checks. The more you play, the more you see.

The same thing happens to me in mathematics. A profound piece of advice applicable to mathematics at many levels is that if there is a problem you cannot solve, then probably there is a simpler, related, problem that you cannot solve either. You first task is to find it. A valuable intuition to have is that some problem can be solved and is worth solving and will lead somewhere. A line of attack also suggests itself. Again, I dont really know where that comes from, but an intense wish to solve the problem, and a frustration at not being able to solve it, are important factors. Intuition suggests, and the conscious mind does what it can.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Intuition is integral to the game of chess. Indeed chess is as much a game of ideas and intuition as it is of moves and calculation.

Some examples of where intuition is used:

* To devise and evaluate potential plans
* To select candidate moves for analysis
* To select moves to play in bullet/blitz/time trouble
* To decide when to start or stop calculating variations
* To weigh the relative importance of different factors in complex positions
* To evaluate unclear or unbalanced positions

The better your intuition, the stronger you will play - and vice-versa. Don't think of calculation and intuition as two separate concepts - they're inextricably weaved together.

Speaking from personal experience, I became a significantly stronger player when I learned to trust my intuition more. And from observing my children playing chess, I think that good intuition is actually the first sign of chess talent.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Most grandmasters, especially even lower rated players, memorise middlegame and endgame position, general principles and tactics e.g. rook and king endgame, queen and king endgames. Theres always general principles for these kind of positions, assuming the position is nearly even for white and black.

The position need not be exactly the same, so most take reference to a similar position.

However for complicated middlegame positions, especially in rapid where people do not have much time to think, the best they can do is use their general knowledge and principles e.g. take to the center not away from it, and look a few moves ahead.

This what i think intuition is broadly
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, learning, theory, tactics, calculation
---


# Question
Title: Why is 3...c5 a blunder in the Center Game Accepted?
```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR"]
[Title "Center Game Accepted"]
[StartFlipped "1"]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 c5??

```

Stockfish says that **3…c5** was a blunder and recommends **3…Nc6** instead.

The advantage goes from `0` to around `+2.0`.

Stockfish provides the following continuation:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR"]
[Title "Center Game Accepted"]
[StartFlipped "1"]
[StartPly "7"]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 c5?? 4. Qe5+ Qe7 5. Qxe7+ Bxe7

```

The advantage is still around `+2.0`.

The resulting position looks equal to me. Why is it better for White?

# Answer
3...`c5` gets two question marks deservedly, not because it loses material, but because it is extremely antipositional and a strong player would win as White on autopilot. The `c5` pawn is weak itself, it blocks the `Bf8` , it can no longer protect the squares `d5`, `b5` and `d6`. Any compensating "grip" on `d4` is an illusion. It does surprise me a bit that the machine gives an advantage as great as +2.0 but I would really hate to have the Black position against a strong opponent. ..`c5` is not a tactical blunder but a positional blunder.

An advantage of 2.0 does NOT mean that you can immediately win two pawns. White could easily give the advantage away, but with correct play Blacks position will gradually collapse under the weight of its own defects. I would start with 6.`Nc3`, eyeing the weak squares at `d5` and `b5`. These are not so serious at the moment because if the Knight actually goes to either square Black can retreat `Bd8`, but later on it might be annoying. And if Black makes the natural reply 6..Nf6, White has 7.e5. So to prepare that move Black might try 6...`d6`, but then 7.`Bf4` to be followed by `0-0-0`.

Rather than attempt to analyse this position I suggest you try taking Black against your computer. Allow yourself as many takebacks as you like. I predict that you will be squashed. You will not be able to find anything constructive to do. Take note of how the machine exploits the weaknesses that I have mentioned.

Now give yourself the White pieces and see if you can give the computer a dose of its own medicine. Again give yourself any number of takebacks. I predict that the thrill of victory will be yours. I predict also, and certainly hope, that you gain a better understanding of what it means to hold a positional advantage.
> 16 votes

# Answer
`c5` is a weird move, not only is it allowing white to potentially take control of the `d4`, `g4` and `f5` squares, which are perfect squares for the white knight or bishop. Additionally, the `e4` is weak and developing the black knight to `f6` just leads to `e5`, and potentially `f4` next, leaving white with a extremely strong control of the center and king side.

I would usually recommend `Nc6`, preventing the queen from being annoying on the `e5` square, plus your kicking white's queen away

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR"]
[Title "Center Game Accepted"]
[StartFlipped "1"]
[StartPly "7"]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qe3 d6

```

Here is an example, I have not analysed this yet, but this seems like a easily playable game for black, rather than black playing `c5`

Example game if `c5` is played to be added in edit later
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, beginner, center
---


title: Opening and endgame experts in chess

text:
# Question
Title: Opening and endgame experts in chess
There are famous players who are *called* endgame experts ("opening expert" IMHO is less used), e.g. Rubinstein. Now obviously, to be a GM, you have to know a bit of all game phases, and a mere "calling" is judgmental and not suited for CSE. One has to back it up.

Question: Do (various possible) "hard" statistical measurements agree with the "soft" assessments found in chess press and literature? (An obvious "soft" recent example would be Carlsen, reknowned endgame torturer.)

My suggested statistical approach (other are possible, see comments, like average game length or centipawn loss): Arbitrarily split a game into the parts \<20 moves ("opening"), \>40 ("endgame") and "middlegame". (This is not true - see Berlin Wall - but should suffice for the crude approach.) Assume the percentages of wins by an average player scored in these phases are o+m+e=100%. Now I expect o to be rather small in GM play (when does a novelty totally pwn the opponent), and thus let e/(o+m) be a proxy for the endgame strength of a player. Thus, can anybody, for starters (I would do it myself if I had the tools), compute these numbers a) for a global average set, b) for Carlsen?

Any metholodogy used here is open to criticism, e.g. the longer the game, the higher the probability the weaker player cracks.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Did an experiment finding a top player playing against a top player on games that reaches an ending. I took some top tournaments according to Jeff Jonas and analyze those games.

I define an ending position as those positions where the total piece (excluding pawns and kings) values are 2 queens or less. Q=10, R=5, B=N=3. Example for KQKQ, piecevalue = 20 is an ending. KRRKRR, piecevalue = 20 is also an ending. So the condition is: if piecevalue \<= 20 it is an ending.

For each tournament check all games, if a piece value of the position reaches 20 or less, analyze it with stockfish 14.1 with 2 threads for 30s. If this position is not winning or losing (score \>= -50cp and score \<= 50cp), then consider it in the calculation.

### AVRO 1938 Result

```
                    players  games   rate
0              Fine, Reuben      1  1.000
1  Reshevsky, Samuel Herman      4  0.500
2     Capablanca, Jose Raul      3  0.500
3                 Euwe, Max      3  0.500
4        Botvinnik, Mikhail      2  0.500
5               Keres, Paul      1  0.500
6       Alekhine, Alexander      4  0.375

```

Fine had 1 game and won it. The others got 50% and Alekhine got 37.5% from 4 games.

The game where Fine won from equal ending position.

```
[Event "AVRO"]
[Site "Holland"]
[Date "1938.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Alekhine, Alexander"]
[Black "Fine, Reuben"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo ""]
[ECO "C83"]
[WhiteElo ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. c3 Be7 10. Nd4 Nxe5 11. f3 Nf6 12. Qe2 Nc4 13. Bc2 Qd7 14. b3 Nb6 15. Re1 O-O 16. Bg5 Rfe8 17. Nd2 Nh5 18. Bxe7 Rxe7 19. Qe5 g6 20. g4 Ng7 21. b4 Rae8 22. Qf4 Na4 23. Re3 Qd6 24. Qxd6 cxd6 25. Rae1 Rc7 26. Nb1 Bd7 27. Rxe8+ Bxe8 28. Bb3 Nb6 29. Kf2 Kf8 30. Rd1 Ne6 31. Ne2 Bc6 32. Na3 Ke7 33. Nc2 Nc4 34. Ne3 h6 35. h4 Nb6 36. Bxd5 Bxd5 37. Nxd5+ Nxd5 38. Rxd5 Rc4 39. Ke3 Kd7 40. f4 Kc6 41. Rd1 Kd7 42. Rf1 Ke7 43. Kd3 g5 44. hxg5 hxg5 45. f5 Nf8 46. f6+ Kd7 47. a4 Ng6 48. axb5 Ne5+ 49. Kd2 axb5 50. Nd4 Nxg4 51. Nxb5 Ne5 52. Nd4 g4 53. Kc2 Rc8 54. Nf5 Rg8 55. Ng3 Rh8 56. Rf2 Nf3 57. Re2 Rh3 58. Nf5 Ne5 59. b5 Rf3 60. Nd4 Rxf6 61. b6 Kc8 62. Nb5 g3 63. Kb3 Rg6 64. Rg2 f5 65. Ra2 Kb7 66. Rd2 f4 67. Nxd6+ Rxd6 68. Rxd6 g2 0-1

```

The ending position with stockfish 14.1 analysis:

```
8/2r1kp2/p2pn1pp/1p1n4/1P4PP/2P2P2/P3NK2/3R4 w - - 0 38 acd 45; acs 30; ce 0; Ae Stockfish 14.1;

```
* acd is the analysis depth
* acs is the analysis time in seconds
* ce is the evaluation in centipawn
* Ae is the analyzing engine name

### St. Petersburg 1895

```
                   players  games   rate
0  Pillsbury, Harry Nelson      5  0.600
1        Steinitz, William      2  0.500
2        Chigorin, Mikhail      1  0.500
3          Lasker, Emanuel      4  0.375

```

### Budapest 1950 Candidates

The first candidates.

```
         players  games      rate
0    Bronstein D      2  0.750000
1        Kotov A      2  0.750000
2      Smyslov V      3  0.666667
3        Keres P      4  0.625000
4  Boleslavsky I      3  0.500000
5        Flohr S      1  0.500000
6      Najdorf M      5  0.400000
7    Stahlberg G      5  0.400000
8        Szabo L      2  0.250000
9   Lilienthal A      1  0.000000

```

### Zurich 1953

```
          players  games      rate
0        Geller E      3  0.666667
1         Kotov A      3  0.666667
2     Stahlberg A      3  0.666667
3       Najdorf M      7  0.571429
4         Keres P      7  0.500000
5         Szabo L      6  0.500000
6       Smyslov V      5  0.500000
7     Bronstein D      3  0.500000
8     Petrosian T      3  0.500000
9      Taimanov M      3  0.500000
10  Boleslavsky I      2  0.500000
11     Averbakh Y      7  0.428571
12         Euwe M      6  0.416667
13     Gligoric S      4  0.375000
14    Reshevsky S      2  0.250000

```

### Reggio Emilia 1991

```
                   players  games      rate
0   Beliavsky, Alexander G      4  0.750000
1             Kamsky, Gata      5  0.500000
2        Gurevich, Mikhail      4  0.500000
3           Andersson, Ulf      3  0.500000
4            Ehlvest, Jaan      2  0.500000
5           Gulko, Boris F      2  0.500000
6         Polugaevsky, Lev      2  0.500000
7       Vaganian, Rafael A      2  0.500000
8        Epishin, Vladimir      1  0.500000
9          Karpov, Anatoly      1  0.500000
10    Ljubojevic, Ljubomir      1  0.500000
11           Ribli, Zoltan      1  0.500000
12         Portisch, Lajos      3  0.333333
13      Romanishin, Oleg M      1  0.000000

```

### Las Palmas 1996

```
              players  games   rate
0      Kasparov, Gary      5  0.600
1     Karpov, Anatoly      4  0.500
2  Anand, Viswanathan      2  0.500
3   Kramnik, Vladimir      2  0.500
4   Ivanchuk, Vassily      1  0.500
5    Topalov, Veselin      4  0.375

```

Gary is superior got 60% in 5 games. He defeated Veselin.

### Linares 1998

```
              players  games      rate
0   Ivanchuk, Vassily      6  0.583333
1   Kramnik, Vladimir      5  0.500000
2      Kasparov, Gary      4  0.500000
3    Topalov, Veselin      3  0.500000
4  Anand, Viswanathan      2  0.500000
5      Shirov, Alexei      2  0.500000
6      Svidler, Peter      2  0.250000

```

### Linares 1999

```
              players  games      rate
0      Kasparov, Gary      3  0.666667
1         Leko, Peter      5  0.500000
2   Ivanchuk, Vassily      4  0.500000
3  Anand, Viswanathan      3  0.500000
4   Kramnik, Vladimir      3  0.500000
5      Adams, Michael      1  0.500000
6      Svidler, Peter      1  0.500000
7    Topalov, Veselin      4  0.375000

```

### Dortmund 2001

```
        players  games      rate
0     Kramnik,V      3  0.666667
1     Topalov,V      2  0.500000
2      Adams,Mi      1  0.500000
3        Leko,P      1  0.500000
4  Morozevich,A      1  0.500000
5       Anand,V      2  0.250000

```

### Corus A, WijkaanZee 2008

```
         players  games      rate
0      Aronian,L      3  0.666667
1      Kramnik,V      5  0.500000
2   Mamedyarov,S      5  0.500000
3      Polgar,Ju      5  0.500000
4      Carlsen,M      4  0.500000
5       Adams,Mi      3  0.500000
6     Ivanchuk,V      3  0.500000
7         Leko,P      3  0.500000
8     Radjabov,T      3  0.500000
9     Van Wely,L      3  0.500000
10       Anand,V      2  0.500000
11     Eljanov,P      2  0.500000
12     Gelfand,B      2  0.500000
13     Topalov,V      3  0.333333
Average Rating: 2742

```

### Bilbao 2008

```
      players  games      rate
0   Aronian,L      2  0.750000
1  Radjabov,T      4  0.500000
2   Topalov,V      4  0.500000
3   Carlsen,M      2  0.500000
4  Ivanchuk,V      2  0.500000
5     Anand,V      6  0.416667
Average Rating: 2768

```

### Tal Memorial 2009

```
        players  games   rate
0     Carlsen,M      4  0.625
1  Morozevich,A      6  0.500
2     Aronian,L      5  0.500
3     Kramnik,V      5  0.500
4  Ponomariov,R      5  0.500
5     Svidler,P      5  0.500
6       Anand,V      4  0.500
7     Gelfand,B      4  0.500
8    Ivanchuk,V      3  0.500
9        Leko,P      5  0.400

```

## Other tournament not in Jeff's list

### Palma de Mallorca Interzonal 1970

```
               players  games      rate
0          Reshevsky S      1  1.000000
1             Larsen B      5  0.700000
2              Minic D      4  0.625000
3            Uhlmann W      4  0.625000
4            Fischer R      5  0.600000
5           Portisch L      7  0.500000
6             Geller E      5  0.500000
7              Panno O      5  0.500000
8            Huebner R      4  0.500000
9            Mecking H      4  0.500000
10           Smyslov V      4  0.500000
11           Naranja R      3  0.500000
12           Suttles D      3  0.500000
13           Addison W      2  0.500000
14          Gligoric S      2  0.500000
15       Polugaevsky L      2  0.500000
16          Taimanov M      2  0.500000
17              Hort V      1  0.500000
18             Ivkov B      6  0.416667
19             Filip M      4  0.375000
20  Jimenez Zerquera E      4  0.375000
21         Matulovic M      4  0.375000
22           Ujtumen T      3  0.333333
23         Rubinetti J      2  0.250000

```

### WijkaanZee 2010

```
              players  games  rate
0          Van Wely,L      1  1.00
1            Shirov,A      2  0.75
2             Short,N      5  0.50
3              Leko,P      4  0.50
4             Anand,V      3  0.50
5           Kramnik,V      3  0.50
6         Nakamura,Hi      3  0.50
7           Carlsen,M      2  0.50
8          Ivanchuk,V      2  0.50
9     Karjakin,Sergey      2  0.50
10  Dominguez Perez,L      1  0.50
11          Caruana,F      5  0.40
12         Tiviakov,S      1  0.00

```

### London 2013 Candidates

```
      players  games      rate
0  Ivanchuk,V      3  0.666667
1   Kramnik,V      7  0.642857
2   Carlsen,M      7  0.500000
3   Aronian,L      5  0.500000
4   Gelfand,B      5  0.500000
5  Grischuk,A      5  0.400000
6   Svidler,P      5  0.400000
7  Radjabov,T      3  0.333333

```

### WijkaanZee 2013

```
                 players  games      rate
0         Aronian, Levon      5  0.600000
1   Harikrishna, Pentala      8  0.562500
2       Caruana, Fabiano      5  0.500000
3              Wang, Hao      5  0.500000
4        Carlsen, Magnus      4  0.500000
5       Karjakin, Sergey      4  0.500000
6           L'Ami, Erwin      4  0.500000
7       Nakamura, Hikaru      3  0.500000
8          Sokolov, Ivan      3  0.500000
9         Van Wely, Loek      3  0.500000
10            Hou, Yifan      2  0.500000
11    Anand, Viswanathan      1  0.500000
12           Giri, Anish      7  0.428571
13           Leko, Peter      6  0.416667

```

### WijkaanZee 2015

```
              players  games   rate
0          Ding Liren      2  0.750
1          Ivanchuk,V      5  0.600
2          Radjabov,T      5  0.500
3           Aronian,L      4  0.500
4           Hou Yifan      4  0.500
5            Saric,Iv      4  0.500
6           Carlsen,M      3  0.500
7                So,W      3  0.500
8   Vachier Lagrave,M      3  0.500
9           Caruana,F      2  0.500
10             Giri,A      2  0.500
11         Van Wely,L      2  0.500
12        Wojtaszek,R      4  0.375
13          Jobava,Ba      1  0.000
Average Rating: 2746

```

### London 2016

```
                   players  games  rate
0               So, Wesley      5   0.5
1        Kramnik, Vladimir      4   0.5
2           Aronian, Levon      3   0.5
3         Caruana, Fabiano      3   0.5
4              Giri, Anish      3   0.5
5  Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime      3   0.5
6           Adams, Michael      2   0.5
7       Anand, Viswanathan      2   0.5
8         Nakamura, Hikaru      2   0.5
9         Topalov, Veselin      1   0.5
Average Rating: 2785

```

### Moscow 2016 Candidates

```
           players  games  rate
0        Aronian,L      6   0.5
1           Giri,A      6   0.5
2        Caruana,F      4   0.5
3        Svidler,P      4   0.5
4  Karjakin,Sergey      3   0.5
5          Anand,V      2   0.5
6        Topalov,V      2   0.5
7      Nakamura,Hi      1   0.5

```

### WijkaanZee 2016

```
            players  games      rate
0         Carlsen,M      6  0.583333
1          Navara,D      7  0.571429
2              So,W      7  0.500000
3          Adams,Mi      6  0.500000
4            Giri,A      5  0.500000
5        Ding Liren      4  0.500000
6      Mamedyarov,S      4  0.500000
7     Tomashevsky,E      4  0.500000
8            Wei Yi      4  0.500000
9   Karjakin,Sergey      3  0.500000
10        Eljanov,P      2  0.500000
11       Van Wely,L      1  0.500000
12        Hou Yifan      8  0.437500
13        Caruana,F      3  0.333333
Average Rating: 2747

```

### WijkaanZee 2017

```
                 players  games      rate
0      Adhiban, Baskaran      3  0.666667
1             So, Wesley      6  0.500000
2        Carlsen, Magnus      5  0.500000
3            Giri, Anish      5  0.500000
4   Harikrishna, Pentala      5  0.500000
5    Nepomniachtchi, Ian      4  0.500000
6         Aronian, Levon      3  0.500000
7      Andreikin, Dmitry      2  0.500000
8         Eljanov, Pavel      2  0.500000
9       Rapport, Richard      2  0.500000
10               Wei, Yi      2  0.500000
11      Karjakin, Sergey      1  0.500000
12        Van Wely, Loek      1  0.500000
13   Wojtaszek, Radoslaw      3  0.333333
Average Rating: 2751

```

### Stavanger 2018

```
             players  games  rate
0          Aronian,L      5   0.5
1            Anand,V      4   0.5
2          Carlsen,M      4   0.5
3    Karjakin,Sergey      3   0.5
4        Nakamura,Hi      3   0.5
5               So,W      3   0.5
6          Caruana,F      2   0.5
7       Mamedyarov,S      2   0.5
8  Vachier Lagrave,M      2   0.5
Average Rating: 2790

```

### Stavanger 2019

```
             players  games      rate
0          Caruana,F      3  0.666667
1               So,W      7  0.571429
2            Anand,V      6  0.500000
3          Aronian,L      5  0.500000
4          Carlsen,M      5  0.500000
5         Ding Liren      5  0.500000
6          Yu Yangyi      5  0.500000
7       Mamedyarov,S      3  0.500000
8  Vachier Lagrave,M      7  0.428571
9         Grischuk,A      4  0.375000
Average Rating: 2784

```

### Saint Louis 2019

```
              players  games   rate
0   Dominguez Perez,L      4  0.625
1                So,W      4  0.625
2           Caruana,F      5  0.600
3           Akobian,V      6  0.500
4         Shankland,S      6  0.500
5         Lenderman,A      5  0.500
6            Robson,R      4  0.500
7       Xiong,Jeffery      4  0.500
8       Liang,Awonder      3  0.500
9         Nakamura,Hi      2  0.500
10      Sevian,Samuel      4  0.375
11           Gareev,T      5  0.300
Average Rating: 2682

```

### Shamkir 2019

```
           players  games      rate
0         Navara,D      3  0.666667
1        Carlsen,M      5  0.600000
2       Radjabov,T      9  0.500000
3       Ding Liren      6  0.500000
4       Grischuk,A      3  0.500000
5  Karjakin,Sergey      3  0.500000
6     Mamedyarov,S      3  0.500000
7           Giri,A      2  0.500000
8          Anand,V      3  0.333333
9        Topalov,V      3  0.333333
Average Rating: 2778

```

### WijkaanZee 2020

```
               players  games      rate
0        Xiong,Jeffery      3  0.666667
1     Firouzja,Alireza      4  0.625000
2               Duda,J      5  0.600000
3   Van Foreest,Jorden      5  0.600000
4               Giri,A      8  0.500000
5                 So,W      8  0.500000
6            Carlsen,M      6  0.500000
7            Caruana,F      4  0.500000
8           Vitiugov,N      3  0.500000
9              Anand,V      2  0.500000
10        Dubov,Daniil      1  0.500000
11          Artemiev,V      4  0.375000
12           Yu Yangyi      6  0.333333
13          Kovalev,Vl      3  0.333333
Average Rating: 2740

```

### Stavanger 2020

```
            players  games      rate
0  Firouzja,Alireza      7  0.642857
1         Carlsen,M      4  0.625000
2         Caruana,F      3  0.500000
3         Aronian,L      7  0.428571
4            Duda,J      4  0.375000
5            Tari,A      3  0.333333
Average Rating: 2762

```

### WijkaanZee 2021

```
               players  games      rate
0     Firouzja,Alireza      3  0.666667
1         Grandelius,N      3  0.666667
2    Vachier Lagrave,M      5  0.600000
3   Van Foreest,Jorden      6  0.583333
4            Caruana,F      8  0.500000
5     Anton Guijarro,D      7  0.500000
6            Carlsen,M      7  0.500000
7          Wojtaszek,R      6  0.500000
8        Harikrishna,P      5  0.500000
9               Tari,A      4  0.500000
10     Esipenko,Andrey      3  0.500000
11              Giri,A      7  0.428571
12              Duda,J      5  0.400000
13     Donchenko,Alexa      7  0.357143
Average Rating: 2724

```

### Stavanger 2021

```
            players  games      rate
0         Carlsen,M      3  0.666667
1   Karjakin,Sergey      4  0.625000
2  Firouzja,Alireza      2  0.500000
3  Nepomniachtchi,I      5  0.400000
4         Rapport,R      4  0.375000
Average Rating: 2760

```

### WijkaanZee 2022

```
                    players  games      rate
0    Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar      2  0.750000
1          Karjakin, Sergey      5  0.700000
2               Giri, Anish      3  0.666667
3          Rapport, Richard      5  0.600000
4           Carlsen, Magnus      4  0.500000
5          Caruana, Fabiano      4  0.500000
6   Vidit, Santosh Gujrathi      4  0.500000
7             Dubov, Daniil      3  0.500000
8          Grandelius, Nils      3  0.500000
9          Esipenko, Andrey      2  0.500000
10      Duda, Jan-Krzysztof      4  0.375000
11           Shankland, Sam      5  0.300000
12        Praggnanandhaa, R      2  0.250000
13      Van Foreest, Jorden      2  0.250000
Average Rating: 2736

```

---
Tags: endgame, statistics, style
---


title: White's plan in Smith-Morra gambit?

text:
# Question
Title: White's plan in Smith-Morra gambit?
Related

The Smith-Morra gambit, or the Morra gambit, is where white sacrifices one pawn to get early development while black has not really done anything. This gambit is also used against the Sicilian defense

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR"]
[Title "Morra gambit"]
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3

```

What are the pros and cons of using this opening and does the extra pawn black has compensate for the lack of development, also what are white\`s plans using this opening?

# Answer
I've played and studied the Morra Gambit for several decades, so I hopefully understand it fairly well. I also have an enormous game database and related notebook with themes, ideas, variations, engine analysis, theoretical novelties, etc.

The first point to make is that the pros and cons vary a lot depending on your own strength and the strength of your opponents. Playing the Morra at Elo/Glicko 1500 level is **very** different to playing it at 2500 level. The following notes are based on the pros and cons for a player rated around 2000 playing against opponents rated 1800-2300. Other people can answer for lower or higher rating ranges.

Pros:

* Works well if you want to take your opponent away from his/her main Sicilian repertoire.
* Works well if you play the Morra regularly, but your opponent only sees it once a year or less.
* Good if you like tactical and uncompromising play because White's better development often leads to a dangerous initiative.
* The ability to calculate deeply and accurately is rewarded more often than in most other openings.
* Many of the positions that arise from the accepted gambit are difficult for Black to play, especially if s/he isn't familiar with them.

Cons:

* You're a pawn down! So the pressure is initially on White to show justification for that pawn.
* You also have to study the Alapin closely because many Black players decline the gambit and forcibly transpose into that variation.
* The ability to calculate deeply and accurately is more important than in most other openings.
* Requires you to spend lots of time memorising complex variations because Black has a lot of flexibility in responding to the gambit and there is a large volume of theory to study.
* If Black has studied at least one defensive line in great detail, *you* might be the one who runs into nasty variations.

Let's start our understanding of the main Morra systems with a summary of the **Classical Main Line**.

```
[Event "Morra Gambit Accepted - Classical Main Line"]
[ECO "B21"]
[FEN "RNBQKBNR/PPPPPPPP/8/8/8/8/pppppppp/rnbqkbnr b KQkq - 1"]

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 d6 7.O-O Nf6 8.Qe2 Be7 9.Rd1 e5

```

This is a solid system characterised by Black's control of d4, prevention of the e4-e5 break (one of White's main tactical motifs in the Morra), and Black's king safety after castling short. White's main compensation is positional - control of d5, a backward pawn weakness on d6, and Black's somewhat passive position. White should focus mainly on active play in the centre and on the Q-side.

Moving on to a summary of the **Qc7 System**.

```
[Event "Morra Gambit Accepted - Qc7 System"]
[ECO "B21"]
[FEN "RNBQKBNR/PPPPPPPP/8/8/8/8/pppppppp/rnbqkbnr b KQkq - 1"]

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 d6 7.O-O a6 8.Qe2 Be7 9.Rd1 Qc7 10.Bf4 Nf6

```

Black moves the queen off the dangerous d-file and strengthens control of the important e5 square. White looks carefully at the e4-e5 break and sacrificing on d5 or b5, while Black typically positions the queen on b8 and tries for the b7-b5 break. This is a dangerous system for Black and has led to many spectacular White victories. But Black should be okay if s/he plays very carefully.

Moving on to a summary of the **Taylor System**.

```
[Event "Morra Gambit Accepted - Taylor System"]
[ECO "B21"]
[FEN "RNBQKBNR/PPPPPPPP/8/8/8/8/pppppppp/rnbqkbnr b KQkq - 1"]

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6

```

This system has been quite popular in the past few years. Black protects the b5 square and prepares ...Nf6. White has to be careful here because the standard Morra setup with Qe2, Rd1, etc has experienced bad results - Black has smooth development starting with ...Bg4. The best way to meet the Taylor System seems to be 7. O-O Nf6 8. Bf4 - then if 8...Bg4 9. h3 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 shows good compensation for the pawn. Or 8...e6 9. Qe2 often transposes into other systems.

Moving on to a summary of the **Bd7 System**.

```
[Event "Morra Gambit Accepted - Bd7 System"]
[ECO "B21"]
[FEN "RNBQKBNR/PPPPPPPP/8/8/8/8/pppppppp/rnbqkbnr b KQkq - 1"]

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.O-O a6 8.Qe2 Be7 9.Rd1 Bd7

```

The Bd7 System isn't very popular nowadays, but above line is Black's most sneaky move order in the system as it avoids dangerous setups with Bg5. Black wants to reduce pressure along the d-file and keep control of the a4-e8 diagonal. But it neglects K-side development and the bishop on d7 can be susceptible to tactics - Rxd7 is a recurring tactical motif.

One common possibility here transposes to a variant of the Classical Main Line with 10. Bf4 e5 11. Be3 Nf6 12. Nd5 - White has good positional compensation.

Moving on to a summary of the **Nge7 System**.

```
[Event "Morra Gambit Accepted - Nge7 System"]
[ECO "B21"]
[FEN "RNBQKBNR/PPPPPPPP/8/8/8/8/pppppppp/rnbqkbnr b KQkq - 1"]

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 a6 7.O-O Nge7

```

This very popular system transfers the knight to g6 from where it controls e5 and prevents Bf4. Of course it's slower than the usual Ng8-f6 and the knight doesn't control d5 or h5. Typical motifs for White include a knight sac on d5, the queen landing on h5, and the pawn push f2-f4-f5.

Moving on to a summary of the **Siberian Variation**.

```
[Event "Morra Gambit Accepted - Siberian Variation"]
[ECO "B21"]
[FEN "RNBQKBNR/PPPPPPPP/8/8/8/8/pppppppp/rnbqkbnr b KQkq - 1"]

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 Qc7

```

This is akin to an accelerated version of the Qc7 system, omitting ...a6. It has a surprise factor, but White has developed a couple of good ideas. One idea is 7. Qe2 meeting 7...Nf6 with 8. e5!? Another idea is 7. O-O Nf6 8. Nb5 Qb8 9. e5! Black must not accept the second pawn, but 9...Ng4 10. Bf4 a6 11. Nd6+ favours White. And 9...a6!? 10. exf6 axb5 11. fxg7 Bxg7 12. Bxb5 keads to a really complex and interesting position.

I will follow-up with a summary of the remaining Morra systems shortly.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: opening, smith-morra-gambit
---