title: Static position analysis

text:
# Question
Title: Static position analysis
This may well be too broad of a question. I'm currently in the process of programming a chess engine, but this is difficult for me as I'm not actually that good of a chess player. I'm having trouble coming up with 'rules' that can analyze a board and give a positive/negative score. Currently I have the following:

* penalty for knights on edge
* bonus for further developed pieces
* bonus for farther advanced pawns (closer to promotions)
* different score for kings in the endgame
* bonus if the player has the bishop pair
* bonus if castled
* assess layout as per these tables (some scrolling required)

I have access to all the information about a game; and functioning move validation. The part I'm getting stuck on is coming up with more of these 'rules' that make the analysis engine better.

# Answer
I think the best way to get yourself acquainted with chess evaluation schemes, is just by looking up the documentations of some of open source (or GNU) chess engines out there, after all such questions have been asked/tackled for many years now, and there are many good answers out there that you need to explore before coming up with your own (hence all the variety of good engines today).

Of course as things stand today, most of chess engines rely on evaluation systems that are (for the most part) heuristics-based. What is important before getting into some of the possibilities is to note that, there's no *one single evaluation function* that would solve chess, so what we really need (all we can hope for really) is a well weighted combination of many different evaluations, some of the main (usually mentioned) ones:

* Pawn structure: if your engine is capable of noticing connected pawns, doubled pawns, blocked pawns, isolated pawns etc, then you're already doing pretty good.
* Material: Probably the easiest part to implement, just get a total piece count for both sides and compare. Then compare by piece-type (how many bishops vs. how many knights etc)
* King safety: Again pretty easy to implement evaluators such as: open lines/diagonals heading towards the king, likelihood of checks (within next 2-3 moves for simplicity), rights to castle, and so on.
* Individual piece evaluation: For each piece type, you should have a different evaluator, that measures its activity, e.g. by counting different possible moves the piece can make (total of 8 for the most active knight as example), openness of diagonals for bishops (also whether own-piece is blocking it or opponent piece, should be weighted differently), available squares for queen etc.
* Mobility: A simpler version of the above if you will, i.e. just count the number possible moves each piece can make, and try to maximize it, i.e. the evaluator should add positively to the total evaluation function if from one move to next one (or more) of your pieces is gaining additional move possibilities.
* Piece exposure: Just count how many of your pieces can be captured within a well defined ply (within next 2 moves e.g.). Such evaluators bring dynamics into your whole evaluation scheme, as based on them, you will then re-prioritize each of the previously mentioned evaluators (by re-distributing the weights initially assigned), you see it's a lot of fun implementing a chess engine ;)
* Central control: Can be simple or very complex, the simple approach would be: defining a set squares that define what you call "center", then count how many pieces can potentially jump to those squares within next 1-2 moves, such approach should give you an estimate for central control.
* More advanced features would be: Tempo considerations, to define such concepts in your engine, you need to have already covered all the basic evaluators. Connectivity or coordination of pieces come next, and so on.

Hope the few mentioned elements give you some rope already, of course there's a long way to go, but it's really important to first *find out what's already been done and tried* before you stumble on your own ideas. There's a must-check website for programming chess engines, have a look, you'll find tons of ideas and implementation suggestions: chessprogramming on wikispaces. If you need further clarifications, don't hesitate! Have fun implementing!
> 3 votes

# Answer
The basic problem with your evaluations is that they make very little allowance for the dynamic features of the position like where are the opponent's pieces, especially king, and what stage of the game - opening, middle game, end game - although you do mention this briefly it is much more important.

Here are some additional factors, although these are generalizations which are not 100% strict rules:

1) In the opening the queen and rooks should rarely venture out into the middle of the board. In the middle game they are best operating from behind their lines but on open files and diagonals or ones which will soon be opened, by pushing and / or exchanging a pawn for instance. In the endgame they are better attacking enemy pieces and pawns and especially the king rather than defending their own.

2) Rooks are much stronger if they are connected (true in all phases of the game) and can be deadly if they are connected close to the opponent's king.

3) Established / supported knights and bishops close to the enemy king are very strong.

4) Doubled pawns are weak

5) Isolated pawns are weak

6) Two pawns standing side by side are generally stronger / more of a threat than where one pawn is supporting the other.

7) Pawns, in the middle game, which are close to the enemy king are much stronger than just the extra you give them for being advanced.

8) Knights are stronger than bishops if they have access to good center squares from which they can not be easily evicted.

9) Bishops are weak if the center is badly blocked and they have little freedom of movement (not many squares they can go to)

10) Weaker pieces, like bishops and rooks, are stronger if they point at stronger enemy pieces like king or queen even though there are pieces in the way. It makes it more dangerous for the enemy to move any of his pieces and you may be able to create threats to move your pieces out of the way.

I'm sure there are many more such general rules / guidelines which could be given, but you get the idea.

One crude way you could implement some of these ideas would be to have flags for these features which apply to the different pieces to which you give values if they are true.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Have you considered the fundamental advantages such as force, time, space (material is the other but you have that covered)?

**Force=** more pieces in an area of the board (usually an attacking force on a weak king)

**Time=** measured in tempo (or tempi plural) think wasted moves i.e.: a poorly placed piece being kicked by pawns. etc. a loss of time which often in early stages means poor development.

**Space=** number of squares beyond the frontier line (the invisible line dividing your opponents side of the board from yours) that your pieces control. compare and contrast space count.

**misc extra** chess is a game of balance, a mismatch in control of a color of squares leads to a "complex" or weakness. i.e.: all of your pieces are attacking light squares, or your king is castled with the g pawn pushed but no fianchettoed bishop to cover the squares leaving a weakness.

also, open vs closed vs dynamic positions and the type of minor piece a side has...knights tend to prefer closed positions, bishops need open diagonals, just like rooks are happy on open files.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, engines
---


# Question
Title: how do some players focus better by thinking on the first move?
I've seen some of my colleagues (2100-2200 Elo) who after shaking hands just think about 3-4 minutes on the first move, even though they know what they're going to play. When I asked one of them he said he's "building up focus and concentration" so I was wondering if someone could clarify that, and I want to know what you people think if that even makes sense

# Answer
Two big reasons:

1. At higher levels, a lot of preparation may be done for a game, especially if you know in advance whom you'll be playing. You'll want to prepare responses to all of their most common or strongest lines. You might also have novelties or uncommon ideas in certain lines to throw your opponent off-book. There is a *lot* to remember, and using five to ten minutes at the start of the game, when you're not under any pressure, to recall all your preparations can be very helpful.
2. Somewhat related, when you sit down for a game, you're often coming from some very different activity: eating, chatting, or kibitzing other games, for instance. You don't want to start playing while you're still distracted or thinking somewhat of other things, so you can take some time--again, while not under pressure--to get into a "chess mindset". This sounds to me like what your colleague was referring to.

I think there's a decent analogy to more typical "physical" sports, here. Before a basketball game, the teams take several minutes in their locker rooms, stretching out, going over the game plan, and "getting in the zone". They need to make sure they're properly warmed up and ready to hit the floor at full speed when the game starts.

The first move of a Chess game can be used in the same way. Just as basketball players need to warm up their muscles, Chess players may benefit from "warming up" their visualizations and calculations, by reviewing lines and tactics and so on.

As with any pregame routine, the exact techniques will vary widely from person to person, but the goals are always the same: get warmed up, get in the zone, and get ready (mentally) for some fierce competition.
> 2 votes

# Answer
A good question.

I tried to understand this strategy and use it in my own games.

Today, I don't use it at all. Because I find it completely useless.

Well, I know what I will play, because I have prepared it in advance. I don't need to focus because I know my first moves and I make them on the board and press the clock. Also, I find little interest in the psychological games of pretending to think or similar tricks. Since time is a resource to be cherished, I prefer to save these minutes to a situation when I actually need them.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It doesn't seem like a great way to concentrate, as you don't really have anything to consider yet. Thinking on the first move when you are out of your book makes more sense to me, especially for people who struggle with time pressure. Famously, Bronstein thought for an hour on his first move once, his explanation being "It is a very difficult position!", but he wasn't the most practical player.

I found that more common reason for thinking on the first move is psychological: strong players sometimes try to guess their opponent's attitude and choose most unpleasant opening. For example, if they feel that their opponent is tired/discouraged, they choose a slow line to make him struggle.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: calculation
---


# Question
Title: How common/important is promotion to knight?
Is a chess program without the ability to promote to knight unacceptably incomplete?

I have a chess program that implements most basic chess rules, such as en passant and castling. However, promotion automatically chooses a queen, as introducing a decision point there would complicate everything from the AI to the replay system to keybindings.

Is a chess program without promotion to knight just no good, or is the average chess player not likely to ever notice that it's missing? And if they do, would it be similar to "oh, no promotion to knight I guess" or more like "how in the world did someone think this was okay? I bet this wasn't even developed by a chess player!" (a safe bet)? I'm hoping that it's trivial enough to be overlooked, but if it really is important then I'll just have to figure it out.

# Answer
Well I definitely wouldn't put it as *unacceptably incomplete*, after all it is a very rare event that you're forced to underpromote into a knight, unless you're fooling around.

That said, there are cases in real games, where you actually have to promote knights (again very rarely, but still every now and then you see one of those), because e.g. you have to promote with a check (otherwise you may get checkmated), so if in such scenarios it's only with knight that you can check, then you really need the knight-promotion option. A random example:

```
[Title "1.e8=N+ Forced knight promotion"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "3K4/4P3/2qk4/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. e8=N+ (1.e8=Q Qc7#)

```

Here's another one: (match between Tomic vs. Winzbeck)

```
[Title "Forced N or B promotion else stalemate"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "3rb2k/2P4p/6pP/p2B1pP1/Pp2pP2/1P2K3/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. cxd8=N (1. cxd8=B) (1. cxd8=Q)

```

On the other hand, it may also happen that if you promote into anything else than knight, you stalemate the position, so again knight-promotion needed. You'll find tons of examples from this chess SE post and links therein.

Whereas if you take online blitz games as example, then most often (for time controls \< 5 mins at least) players set their automatic promotion to queen so that in case they're in time trouble and have to promote, they can premove it.

All in all, I would say that you should *try* to implement it for completeness, and if it turns out difficult for you, then don't worry too much about it, no big deal.

I actually do recall a very fun game between Hikaru Nakamura and Boris Savchenko in the previous world blitz championship, where Nakamura had to underpromote into knight with check in order to avoid a mate in 1, here's the clip, it's only 2 minutes, watch it from the start, but if you just want to see the promotion moment, here it is.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Underpromotion may be uncommon but it is important in the sense that, on the rare occasions you need it, you really do **NEED** it.

The two basic scenarios, covered in the other answer, are:

1. Underpromotion to non-queen to avoid stalemating the opponent
2. Underpromotion to knight because your next move absolutely needs to be a check

Neither of these situations warrants an "oh, no promotion to knight I guess" response, as if they're being over fussy and should just choose the queen like everyone always does because its the best. The queen *isn't* the best here and being forced to choose it is likely to cost them the game.
> 3 votes

# Answer
While under promoting to a knight is relatively rare, under promoting to a rook is not.

It's not uncommon to promote to a rook in a king vs king and pawn endgames to avoid stalemating the king.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Maybe it's a bit obscure, but how will you check your move generation with promotions? I mean, for testing your move generator, as soon as a promotion happens, you won't have a way to check whether your promotion code is working properly.

Just in case somebody has no idea what I'm tlaking about; http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Perft+Results
> 2 votes

---
Tags: software, pawn-promotion
---


# Question
Title: When playing chess online, what does 1-1 mean?
When playing chess online, when your opponent says 1-1, what does 1-1 mean?

# Answer
As your question isn't very clear, but by what you have mentioned about your opponent saying 1-1, i can say there are 2 possibilities.

He either means it as the score between you 2 such as, you guys have played 2 games and both ended in draw, considering half point to each player per draw, it's 1-1, or both player has lost 1 and won another so 1-1 again.

Or he might be saying it regarding time control of a game. 1-1 meaning 1 minute per player and 1 second increment per move for the whole game.

More examples for time controls are such as : 2-1, 5-2, 10-0, 15-10, etc. Where the first number indicates the time in minutes per player for the whole game and the second digit indicates the increment time in seconds per move per player till the end of the game.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: learning, online-chess
---


title: How can I play?

text:
# Question
Title: How can I play?
Can someone please just tell me how all of the pieces move? I always get the castles and the priests mixed up, but I know one of them makes an "L" or a backwards "L". Thank you for your underatanding.

# Answer
Just look into this link and you will understand how all the pieces move and also how moves such as castling, en passant and pawn promotion work. Also it is a great website to learn chess.

http://www.chess.com/learn-how-to-play-chess#howtomove
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning, rules, beginner, pieces
---


# Question
Title: Clarification on changed rules of getting rating from FIDE
As of July 2014 FIDE states

7.14c The condition of a minimum of 5 games need not be met in one tournament. Results from other tournaments played within consecutive rating periods totalling not more than 26 months, are pooled to obtain the initial rating.

Before July 2014, 12 months period of play for minimum of 9 games was pooled together to calculate the rating, and if minimum of 9 games are not played within 12 months then you are supposed to play 9 more games again starting as a new unrated player.

Well i had played 8 rated games before June 2014 (in April and I'm still unrated because i did not play the the 9th one) and now as 12 months has passed as per the old rule but not 26 months as per new one, if i play a FIDE rated tournament now, will the performance of my last tournament be considered for my rating performance or do i have to play freshly at least 5 games and get 0.5 points to get a new rating.

# Answer
> 2 votes
If at least 4 of your opponents in that April 2014 FIDE rated tournament had FIDE ratings before the tournament and if you play another FIDE rated player in another FIDE rated tournament within 26 months of the April 2014 tournament and if you scored at least half a point out of all the games you played against FIDE rated opponents (so minimum of 0.5 / 5) then you should get a FIDE rating.

The key points are that you have to play at least 5 FIDE rated opponents (some of your opponents in April 2014 may have been unrated like you) and you have to get at least one draw against your FIDE rated opponents. They can't calculate a rating if you lose all your games.

---
Tags: rules, rating
---


# Question
Title: What should an arbiter do if a player has illegally stopped notating?
Situation: a standard game, 1 hour 40 minutes for the game with 10 seconds increment per move. FIDE rules. White has two minutes left and has stopped writing down his moves, as he is allowed to because he has less than five minutes. Black has an hour left, but is blitzing along with white and has also stopped writing down the moves.

Unfortunately, I (the arbiter) was only made aware of this when the game was over (white resigned); I was there, watching the board and the clock, but couldn't see the player playing black because of other spectators and hadn't realized he wasn't writing.

If I had noticed during the game, I'm not sure what I should have done.

* Is this something an arbiter can step in for by himself, or should I have waited for a complaint by white? (I *think* I could have just told black he should be writing down his moves)
* More importantly, I think the only remedy in the rules is that the player has to repair his notation on his own time. This would probably have been impossible, and certainly nobody had written anything down. How could he do this? How could I check that he had done it, and not written down some random moves? Reconstructing on a second board would be so disastrous to white's concentration that it would not be in his favor.
* Is there anything else I should have done, had I noticed during the game?

# Answer
> 7 votes
The first time you see a player doing this you should warn him and make him catch up on his time. If you are watching the game closely it is likely that there will only be 2 or 3 moves to make up.

Note that he need not write after every move but must not make a move if he has not written his previous move. In that case, particularly with a blitz finish you should immediately stop the clocks and only then issue the warning. If you feel that you have delayed significantly in stopping the clocks to the second player's detriment then you may adjust the second player's clock accordingly.

If he repeats the offence you should give him a final warning, make him catch up again and give his opponent an additional 2 minutes.

If he repeats the offence after your final warning then default him. Award him 0 and his opponent 1 unless it is impossible for his opponent to deliver mate by any sequence of legal moves. In that case (mate not possible) then award each player 0.5

Under the old rules stepping in without a complaint was at your discretion. Under the new rules you are obliged to intervene regardless of whether or not there has been a complaint.

Edit: As Remco points out I have only answered the easy parts of his question above ;-). I've had a long think about the difficult part and this is what I came up with.

This situation is not covered explicitly in the rules. Instead, as the introduction to the rules state, you are left to make your own judgment based on analogous situations in the rules and by fairness, logic and special factors.

I will give two possible solutions which might help you if the situation arise again.

1) 8.1e states the following:

> If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way. This adjustment of the clock shall not apply to a player with a disability

When I have played in competitions where a player has been "unable to keep score" (the opponent of a teammate in a league match) the solution was that the player had 10 minutes deducted from his time before the start of the game. This was with a time control of 90 minutes for the game plus 30 second increment.

Using this as an analogous situation one possibility in the situation you describe would be to deduct 10 minutes (or such time as you deem appropriate) from the offender's remaining time. Of course this runs into the problem of what to do if the offender has less than 10 minutes left or even if he has only 11 or 12 minutes left. In those situations this may be an unjust solution.

2) Another possible solution would be to take the two players to a separate room (so as not to disturb the other players) after first stopping the clocks and noting the times and position on the board. There you could set up the position on one board and play through the game on another board up to the end of the recording of the moves. Set the offending player's clock going and invite him to try and reconstruct the missing moves. He is invited to do this until he has 5 minutes remaining at which point he is no longer required to record the moves. It may be that this added pressure will spur him on to succeed.

A variation of this solution would be to just reset his clock to 5 minutes and resume with neither player recording.

Whichever solution you decide on at the time I would advise you to have a copy of the rules with you and to explain your decisions with reference to the rules so that the players can understand your reasoning process. This should help reduce arguments and misunderstandings.

---
Tags: rules, annotation, arbiters
---


# Question
Title: Is there a name for this variation ? (or just this setup in general)
Recently I played a game against an international master, which I won, with a variation I prepared by having Deep Fritz 14 analyze each move individually, and now I'm wondering is there a specific name for this: (I play with white)

```

[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nc3 0-0 6. Bf4

```

And to continue, I never actually played e3 in the game, but proceeded to set up e4 and eventually succeeded...

It doesn't have to be exactly this one, but I found that it doesn't fit in the description of the Barry attack or London system?

# Answer
You are right that it doesn't fit the description for the Barry Attack or London system. In neither system does white fianchetto his kingside bishop like that.

The black side looks characteristic of the Gruenfeld Defence. There are many ways for white to respond to the Gruenfeld. I haven't seen this one but that doesn't mean much since I rarely play the Gruenfeld as black.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: in silman's book, question about open files and global exchange
In a book from J.Silman, I found this position:

```
 [FEN "r1qr2k1/p2bppbp/3p2p1/1p1P4/3B1P2/1B3Q1P/PPP3P1/3RR1K1 b - - 0 17"]

 1... Re8 2. c3 h5 *

```

It deals with the rooks, white managed to semi-open the `e` column and will deploy a massive attack on it. My question is : why black does not play `e7-e5`? After `dxe6` the white pawn is sufficiently attacked by black's forces, and if there is a global exchange on `e6`, the weakening of the black's castle does not seem to be dangerous.

# Answer
> 3 votes
It seems to me that after e5 and exchanges on e6 and g7 the d6-pawn is hanging ...

```
 [FEN "r1qr2k1/p2bppbp/3p2p1/1p1P4/3B1P2/1B3Q1P/PPP3P1/3RR1K1 b - - 0 17"]

 1... Re8 2. c3 e5 3.dxe6 Bxe6 4.Bxg7 Kxg7 5.Bxe6 Rxe6 6.Rxe6 fxe6 7.Rxd6

```

---
Tags: pawns, rooks
---


title: What is the maximum DTM with K+J vs K?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the maximum DTM with K+J vs K?
What is the maximum Depth to Mate (DTM) in the endgame king + janus vs king on a 10x8-board ?

The janus can move like a bishop or like a knight. Since both sides have two additional pieces, the board has 10 columns and (like the chess board), 8 rows.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I don't know the exact answer for the 10x8 board (used e.g. in Capablanca Chess, where your Janus is called the Archbishop), but I have something that could get you well along toward an exact answer, though with some effort on your part (see further below). On the 8x8 board the max DTM is 17 moves (as you may already know). My conjecture is that the 10x8 answer won't be far off from that, and I'd bet a small sum that it's no more than 19 moves. (After all, if the defending king starts in the center of the 10x8 board and you start corralling it, you're almost immediately into a situation in which, as you start pushing to an edge/corner, the rest of the mating sequence will be indistinguishable from how it would play out on the 8x8 board, as the rest of the board's real estate becomes simply irrelevant.) But as for getting an exact 10x8 answer ...

A few years ago, I was toying around with generating tablebases for Seirawan Chess, which is played on the standard 8x8 board, but features the same extra pieces as Capablanca Chess. In the Seirawan variant, the Janus/Archbishop piece goes by the name Hawk. I just now placed into a github repository my old C++ source code for generating a complete KHK (or, KJK in your terminology) tablebase on the 8x8 board, along with the output files, where e.g. `KHK.0` is the set of all mate positions, and `KHK.34` is the set of all positions where it is 34 ply until black is mated. It hasn't undergone tons of testing, but this and similar ones for e.g. KEK (king-and-elephant/chancellor vs. king) appeared to function correctly and agree with known results. For instance, the max DTM of 17 moves on the 8x8 board indicated by my KHK stuff is the same value given at the wikipedia page for the Princess piece (yet another name for this particular fairy chess piece).

My code would need to changed a bit in order to adapt to your 10x8 board question. In particular, my code makes full use of the symmetries of the 8x8 board in order to reduce the number of positions needing to be examined, and of course the 10x8 board is less symmetric; so that would need an alteration. Additionally, my somewhat crude representation/storage of positions in this simple program would need to be changed and accounted for (in terms of some hard-coded arithmetic that's performed, for instance) in order to adapt to the 10x8 board. You can see the sort of thing I mean in the following snippets:

```
// Constants to name the symmetries of the board.
const int sym_id = 1;
const int sym_x = 2; // reflect across x axis
const int sym_y = 3;
const int sym_d1 = 4; // reflect across a1-h8 diagonal
const int sym_d2 = 5;
const int sym_r90 = 6; // rotate 90 degrees clockwise
const int sym_r180 = 7;
const int sym_r270 = 8;

int Apply_Symmetry (int sym, int square)
{
    // Applies the specified symmetry of the board to the specified square
    //     (in 0x88 terms).

    if (sym == sym_d1) {
        return (square / 16) + ((square % 16) * 16);
    }

    else if (sym == sym_y) {
        return ((square / 16) * 16) + (7 - (square % 16));
    }

    else if (sym == sym_d2) {
        return (7 - (square / 16)) + ((7 - (square % 16)) * 16);
    }

    else if (sym == sym_x) {
        return (square % 16) + ((7 - (square / 16)) * 16);
    }

    else
        return 0;
}

```

But anyway, the structure and the functionality is there if you wanted to modify the code to produce an answer for the max DTM on the 10x8 board, and all told there's only a few hundred lines of code.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I make it 21 moves, but it's quite likely that my home-made Python code (too long and messy to post here!) has mistakes, so please take this with a grain of salt. I get 112 positions which require 21 (white) moves to mate. The first one on the list is the following board, with black to play:

(Janus shown as a bishop because I couldn't easily find a suitable graphic. Image created using http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php)

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate, chess-variants, tablebases, unorthodox-pieces
---


# Question
Title: Concerning a chess problem generating program
Are there any programs that can generate a huge amount of different interesting chess problems? Are there any programs that can make a lot of retrograde analysis problems?

# Answer
> 2 votes
AFAIK, there aren't programs that generate chess problems On the other hand, there are several well known programs to verify chess problems (even with fairy chess conditions).

The main reason is that composing a good problem is kind of an art, the problem should not only be valid (in the sense that it is solvable etc.) but also esthetically pleasing. It also should be original, showing something new or fresh. These aspects are badly handled by computer programs upto now.

---
Tags: software, problems, composing
---


# Question
Title: Is there a Web Service available for 6-piece endgame tablebases?
I use the LokaSoft web service for 5-piece endgames, but cannot find one for 6 pieces.

BTW, by web service I mean a software function capable of being called over the internet (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web\_service), not simply a service being offered on the web.

# Answer
> 3 votes
We can find several website giving 6-piece endgame tablebase, the tricky part is probably the way you want the information back. Here is 2 examples of endgame tablebase :

In both of this example you can ask a position by putting FEN code, so there is probably a way to use it as a webservice. (Perhaps you'll have to use a script)

Also another suggestion, on the link section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame\_tablebase you can find Nalimove database and try to make it communicate with your software.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Nalimov tablebases allow up to 6 pieces including the Kings,http://www.k4it.de/?topic=egtb&lang=en

---
Tags: endgame, tablebases
---


# Question
Title: Learning my favorite grandmaster games by heart
I am novice with average of 1000 -1500 elo.

If I start learning games played by grandmasters by heart, as in memorizing them, does it help me improve my chess skill, or it is a useless waste of time?

Also, I’m not talking about just random grandmaster games, but games from grandmasters with style that I like for a particular reason, such as their attacking style for example

This doesn’t mean learning games with a deep analysis as to why this move was made (because of my low rating), but learning with a possible chance to learn typical/mini combinations.

Any suggestions?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I'm going to be a bit contrarian and say that it may be more beneficial than the other answers here seem to imply. The reasoning is simple - what is the easiest way to remember a series of moves? Not by simply remembering which piece moved where, but by understanding what the *purpose* of each move is.

And if you know the purpose of each move, your mind may start to associate the remembered patterns with the purposes. This seems to me that it could be quite beneficial.

Now I'm not saying this is better than other forms of training, but if you particularly enjoy this activity, then it may be more productive than doing another form of training which you don't. Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would *enjoy* remembering details like this, but to each his own.

In addition, given a historical chess position, many GM's can easily recall which game the position is from (I saw a documentary where Carlsen was given a position from a random historical game and he got most of the information about the game right; he remembered who the players were, but I think he got the exact year slightly wrong). This indicates to me that GM's spend a non-trivial amount of time studying and remembering other games - it would be strange to dismiss this form of training out of hand.

# Answer
> 6 votes
It won't help much. You won't understand why they are choosing the moves they are making. The easiest and fastest way to improve is to go to your local chess club. They will pair you with opponents of your skill level. The better players will help you.

# Answer
> 0 votes
This is actually the main idea behind The Royal Game, a short story by Stefan Zweig. Very well written and very recognisable for anyone who plays chess.

---
Tags: learning, grandmaster, memorization
---


# Question
Title: Interesting Ending Knight + pawn vs Rook - main plans (white and black)
From the feedback received I updated the main line (from pos 39). I post an update of this endgame. Now it is more clear that f7 is a weak point, and it is tricky for black to try to stop the two menaces: f7 and play on the c file ... It is not clear whether to try to take e5 pawn or play on the queenside without stopping rook menaces.

Edit 1: From your suggestions I tried to improve the game ... but somehow I think that white can improve the game ... I arrive at this position that seems nice for black (with idea of b3 and promote ...)

```
[Title "Side to move: Black"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "8/5p2/4p2p/3pP1pP/1p1n4/k7/P2R1KP1/8 b - - 5 45"]

```

Here I post the update the rest of analysis :

```
[Event "Android 2.3.5"]
[Site "GT-I9001"]
[Date "2015.04.20"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Stockfish 4"]
[Black "Mandor"]
[Result "*"]
[Startply "75"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Nce2 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Nf3 cxd4 9.cxd4 Be7 10.Nc3 O-O 11.Be2 a6 12.O-O Qa7 13.Be3 b5 14.Qc2 Nb6 15.b3 b4 16.Nb5 Qd7 17.Nd6 Bxd6 18.exd6 Qxd6 19.Ne5 Ne7 20.Bd3 g6 21.Rac1 a5 22.Qc5 Qxc5 23.dxc5 Nd7 24.c6 Nxe5 25.fxe5 Ba6 26.Bxa6 Rxa6 27.Bc5 Nxc6 28.Bxf8 Kxf8 29.Rfe1 Ke7 30.Rc2 Kd7 31.Rf2 Nd8 32.Kf1 Rc6 33.Ke2 Rc2+ 34.Kf1 Rxf2+ 35.Kxf2 Nc6 36.h3 Kc7 37.h4 Kb6 38.Kf3 h6 39.Kg4 Kb5 40.Kg3 a4 41.bxa4+ Kxa4 42.h5 g5 43.Re2 Ka3 44.Kf2 Nd4 45.Rd2 b3 46.axb3 Nc6 47.Ke3 Kb4 48. Rc2 Kb5 49.Rc1 Nxe5 50.Rc7 Kb6 51.Re7 Kc6 52.b4 Kd6 53.Rb7 Ng4+ 54.Kd4 e5+ 55.Kc3 d4+ 56.Kc4 Ne3+ 57.Kd3 Nxg2 *

```

All suggestions are welcome! Thanks!

Edit 2: From this position : 8/5p1p/1kn1p1p1/p2pP3/1p5P/1P3K2/P5P1/4R3 b - - 2 38

Summarizing until now from the core position. Is it possible to win with black? How? :) 1) Plan put Knight on f6 seems to fail due to: 38. Kf3 (for example) .. Nd4+ 39. Kf4 Nb5 40. Rf1! (and ok Knight, you can occupy f6 and I will let rook take f7 for example with Ke3 )

2) Plan to change e5 pawn for f7 pawn I did not manage to have anything. Usually the white rook could counter attack on the back rank, and somehow the king and rook will take the kingside pawns.

3) Plan to put king on b5 for me seems the most promising... but I did not manage to make it work : 38. Kf3 (to be coherent) h6 39. Kg4 (yes seems strange) Kb5 40. Kf4 a4 (with initial idea but ..) 41. bxa4+ Kxa4 42. Rc1! .. and what to do? Kb5 ?¿ And how to progress ? :( (I though something like 42. Rc1 42. g5 43. hxg5 hxg5 44. Kxg5 Nxe5 45. Kf6 ...

Other ideas?¿

# Answer
> 2 votes
First of all, I think white can only play to hold. The question is whether black can really create winning chances.

All the h3-h4-Kf3-Kg4-Kg3 stuff in the game and your line, is pretty much just white doing nothing.

Personally I would put the king on f4 straight away to free up the rook. And then put the rook on the c-file. This should limit blacks options by attacking the knight, cutting off the king and threatening a backrank invasion should the knight ever move.

In this scenario even playing a4 cannot easily be engineered because the black king wouldn't be able to take back on a4 and keep protecting the knight.

There are some other motifs in this position. When the white king reaches f4, black pretty much has to play h6 to prevent the invasion. And if black plays h6 white has to play h4, otherwise g5+ will always threaten to win the e5 pawn. If white starts with h4, I would seriously consider h6 with black because white might play h5 the next move, and suddenly the black kingside becomes pretty morose. (So, in the line you give 37.h4 Kb6 38. h5 might be an idea for white. 38…g5 39.h6 and the g5 pawn will fall, 38…h6 39.hxg6 fxg6 and at least there is another open file, although that one isn't so clear to me, but still, why give white the option?)

```
[FEN ""]
[Startply "75"]
[Event "Android 2.3.5"]
[Site "GT-I9001"]
[Date "2015.04.20"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Stockfish 4"]
[Black "Mandor"]
[Result "*"]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Nce2 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Nf3 cxd4
9.cxd4 Be7 10.Nc3 O-O 11.Be2 a6 12.O-O Qa7 13.Be3 b5 14.Qc2 Nb6 15.b3 b4
16.Nb5 Qd7 17.Nd6 Bxd6 18.exd6 Qxd6 19.Ne5 Ne7 20.Bd3 g6 21.Rac1 a5 22.Qc5
Qxc5 23.dxc5 Nd7 24.c6 Nxe5 25.fxe5 Ba6 26.Bxa6 Rxa6 27.Bc5 Nxc6 28.Bxf8
Kxf8 29.Rfe1 Ke7 30.Rc2 Kd7 31.Rf2 Nd8 32.Kf1 Rc6 33.Ke2 Rc2+
34.Kf1 Rxf2+ 35.Kxf2 Nc6 36.h4 Kc7 37.Kf3 Kb6 38.Kf4 h6 39.Rc1

```

Now, black can still play for a win, by bringing the knight to c3. For example 39…Nd4 40.Rc8 Ne2+ 41.Ke3 Nc3 42.Rf8 this is extremely sharp and there are many options. White could go 39.Re2 first and the Rc2 and try to defend passively. Or maybe after 41…Nc3 he could just check the black king from behind and only go to f8 after the white kind went to the seven's …

# Answer
> 1 votes
Do not forget that the open c-file cannot be closed by the black king alone. What I mean is that if white gets his king on f4 he can move his rook to c1. As soon as the knight does not 'close' the c-file white can put his rook on either c5 or c8 after which it can attack the black pawns. Do not know if this will be good for white in the end but it gives possibilities. On f4 the white king is also still capable to stop the black d-pawn.

---
Tags: endgame, exchange, rook-and-minor-endgame
---


title: Openings for pawn storms

text:
# Question
Title: Openings for pawn storms
I am a weak player and I always will be. After completing the opening I have no idea what to do and, since a bad plan is better than no plan, I decided to do this from now on in every game:

1. wait for my opponent to castle;
2. castle in the opposite side;
3. start a pawn storm.

My usual opponents are even weaker than me, so I really think it can work, and I expect it to be more enjoyable than just wait for a tactical mistake. My question is... what kind of opening repertoire is most suited to implement my plan?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Since your opponent is most likely to castle short, you have to choose lines where long castling (for you) is reasonable.

With white I would suggest `1. e4`, and against `1... e5` the Center Game `1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qe3`.

```
[Title "Center Game"]
[FEN ""]

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

```

Against `1... c5` you can play the Open Sicilian (`2. Nf3` followed by `3. d4`).

Against other black defenses you can find lines with long castling as well.

With black it's more difficult. You could try the French Winawer

```
[Title "French Winawer"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4

```

against `1. e4` and the Albin Countergambit

```
[Title "Albin Countergambit"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4

```

against `1. d4`.

---
Tags: opening, planning
---


# Question
Title: Where exactly in the Fide handbook can you find the hand shaking rule?
So I was wondering where is it located, in the fide handbook, the rule that you have to shake hands with your opponent. I know it exists, especially since the Cheparinov-Short case some time ago, I was just wondering if anyone knew the exact place of it in the Handbook?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I'm not sure there was ever more than this press release. It should have been expounded upon and turned into some rules of conduct, but it seems to me this never happened.

They do put the following rule in tournament regulations from time to time:

"13.3 The players shall shake hands (or shall greet each other in a normal social manner in accordance with the conventional rules of their society) before the start and after the end of each game. If a player fails to meet these requirements and after being asked to do so by the Chief Arbiter, then the player will lose the game immediately."

Which they really wouldn't have to do, if this rule was a part of the official laws of chess.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Also the fact that Kramnik and Topalov don't shake hands before and after the games (since the incident in the world championship game in 2006) shows that it's not compulsory even in the very high level. Here you can find an interview with Kramnik about this issue.

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


# Question
Title: Video of the Kasparov vs. Kaprov 2009 match in Valencia
Is there a video archive of the (rapid and blitz) match between Kasparov and Karpov that took place in Valencia in 2009? I assume there was a live video coverage with commentary, and I would very much like to watch it. Is there a website where one can (re)watch this match?

# Answer
I could find replay of live videos, but the commentary wasn't available..! :/ here you can stream those videos

Kasparov vs Karpov - Valencia, 2009
> 1 votes

---
Tags: blitz, kasparov, karpov, rapid
---


# Question
Title: Did black misplay here or did I miss something?
I'm getting back into chess after a hiatus of 8+ years, so I'm a bit rusty. This position is from a game I just played online.

I'm white and it's my move. I threaten black's rook and knight with `Qd5`, and this is how it played out. I'm amazed it worked in my favor, because as far as I can tell, instead of `3. - a6`, he could have moved `3. - Qf6`, which would save him after a few exchanges. Am I missing something, or did he just make the wrong move?

EDIT: Removed irrelevant sentence about Kf7.

```
r1b1kbnr/p1pp4/1p6/4nP1p/6pq/2N5/PPP1BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 1

1. Qd5 Nc6
2. Bb5 Nge7
3. Re1 a6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. Qxc6+ Bd7
6. Qxa8+ Kf7
7. Qxa6

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
As you saw in your game `a6` failed terribly as it's simply inviting white to take on `c6` and win the rook. Black had a better way of avoiding all of this a move earlier, i.e. `2. Bb5 Nf6` instead of `Nge7`. See illustration:

```
r1b1kbnr/p1pp4/1p6/4nP1p/6pq/2N5/PPP1BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 1

1. Qd5 Nc6
2. Bb5 Nf6
3. Re1+ Kd8
4. Qd2 (4. Qd3 Bc5) (4. Qc4 Bc5)

```

Finally as for `Qf6`, as has been suggested in comments by others, it simply loses to `Ne4` (or the engine move which is `Bf4`, but it doesn't matter as `Ne4` is good enough):

```
r1b1kbnr/p1pp4/1p6/4nP1p/6pq/2N5/PPP1BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 1

1. Qd5 Nc6
2. Bb5 Nge7
3. Re1 Qf6
4. Ne4 Qf7
5. Bxc6 dxc6
6. Qe5 Bg7
7. f6

```

So both `a6` and `Qf6` blunder the game away, the former bit more horribly so.

# Answer
> 0 votes
In the initial position I would chose White. Black is slightly ahead in material, but most of it is a dead wood.

3. ... Qf6 loses to 4. Ne4, e.g. 4. ... Nd5 5. Nf6++ K~ 6. Nd5 recovering material.

---
Tags: combinations
---


title: Is there a path to victory?

text:
# Question
Title: Is there a path to victory?
I played a game against my mobile AI, me playing white. At this point in the game I had to get off my train, and when I picked it up again I was a bit quick on the trigger, moving my e-pawn, which cost me my rook and the game.

```
8/pk3rpp/2R5/8/P7/4P3/6PP/6K1 w - - 0 1

```

I've been scratching my head for half a day trying to figure out whether it was really a won game. My question here is, what is worth more: my pawn, or his king being more free to move around?

An additional pawn (and a passed one at that) is a strong piece in the end game, but so is a king, and my pawn is far from promotion. If I could somehow protect my a-pawn while simultaneously guide the e-pawn forwards I would probably win. Is that doable?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Yes, this is a winnable endgame for white. Though you have to work hard for it, precise thinking would lead you to definite win.

It's hard to explain all moves that could lead to win or draw because then there would be lots of ifs and then, so I will try to explain you the plan where you can have the most possible opportunity for a forced win.

As you said king is a very important piece to be in play in endgame, and here, not only is your king cut off from the rook on f file but black's king is also cut off by your rook on 6th rank. To start with you can play 1.Re6 not allowing black's king to come forward beyond the 7th rank and now planning to march the e pawn. But there is no urgency to march it right away as the e pawn is completely safe on e3 as white can defend it by playing g3 first and put your king on g2 so if any time black plays Rook to e file attacking the pawn then white king can come to f3 and defend it. Also there is no good way Black can attack your pawn on a4. The Blacks King can not come forward and the rook on f7 is stuck because if he moves it down the board then white is going to take control of the 7th rank and cause problems for g and h pawns and black king is far away from defending it (g and h pawns can not be pushed up because of Rook coming behind those pawns and capturing it and if the black rook comes to defend it, then your e pawn is free to move up the board), if the rook moves sideways then white king can just come into play by playing Kf3. At some point you can even give up your e3 and a4 pawns for attacking black pawns on g and h files, the basic idea here is to allow black's 'a' pawn to march forward while getting the advantage of your own 2 connected passed pawns to march forward to queen, and here White wins as 2 pawns down the lane is going to be much more effective than Blacks a pawn.

I believe I have given you a rough plan to understand how you can win this endgame, if you have any idea of defence or any doubts, please comment and let me know. If you want to have precise moves and deep analysis of each move, I suggest you to put this position into a chess engine and see what happens when you play different moves, but again there, you will understand the basic idea and the plan to look forward to from the initial position, is the same as I have mentioned.

---
Tags: analysis, rook-endgame
---


# Question
Title: What are strategic elements for a correct piece sacrifice?
I want know which plus elements need to have in general positions for a correct piece sacrifice! Or how do you know that a sacrifice is correct in complicated position?

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is no general rule for a correct sacrifice, however sacrifices are made with different ideas and strategies, such as, to get a huge space advantage, to initiate attack, to cause trouble to the king by opening up it's surrounding pawns, etc. But at the end you have to make sure that your compensation for the sacrifice is pretty good before you actually give up material, and that can only be done by precise thinking in the game. Some of the things you have to keep in mind before sacrificing your material are;

* You have good compensation for your sacrifice; i.e. you are gaining something back such as attack, space, gain back opponents material of same value or higher, or mate at some point.
* You are defending loss of higher material, avoiding opponent's dangerous attack, defending mate.
* Making sure of not going into a neutral position or causing no trouble to your opponent after giving up a sacrifice. This would just make you have less material for nothing.

Here are few examples of famous sacrifices, going through these kind of games will help you understand patterns of sacrifices and ideas behind it. (Make sure to read comments which will appear in the lower box of the game for most moves ) :

**The strategical Exchange Sacrifice in Sicilian:**

In the Sicilian Defense the exchange sacrifice on c3 is quite typical. In Dragon lines it is almost mandatory to sacrifice a rook for the knight on c3.

What advantages does black usually get? First of all, black gets a ruined pawn structure for white. Secondly, Nc3 was a defender of the central squares d5 and e4, and by eliminating it black can take over the center. Lastly and most importantly, black can launch a dangerous attack on the weak squares around white’s king, since Nc3 was the main defender of the queenside. All of these are major advantages that black gets in return for a material loss. The disadvantage of such an exchange is that if white successfully defends, white might just win because he is up on material. There is also a curious phenomena in such positions: sometimes endgames down an exchange favor black. This is because black’s pawn structure is compact and he usually has no weaknesses. There are no open files for white’s rooks to penetrate, making them not that active.

The following first example shows the attack that black gets for the sacrifice, while the next example shows the endgame.

```
[Event "WchT 4th"]
[Site "Luzern"]
[Date "1997.10.27"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Arencibia Rodriguez, Walter"]
[Black "Ivanchuk, Vassily"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B95"]
[WhiteElo "2550"]
[BlackElo "2725"]
[Annotator "Tyomkin,D"]
[Setup "1"]
[FEN "2rqk2r/1b1nbppp/p2ppn2/1p4B1/3NPP2/P1NB3Q/1PP3PP/2KR3R b k - 0 12"]
[Plycount "19"]
[Eventdate "1997.10.??"]
[Eventtype "team"]
[Eventrounds "9"]
[Eventcountry "SUI"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[Sourcedate "1998.01.31"]

1...Rxc3 { Black destroys the main defender of white's king and sets
the targets of c3 and a3 for attack. } 2.bxc3 Nc5 { Black decides to bring his
knight to attack instead of taking on e4, even though taking on e4 gave black a
slight edge. } ( 2...Nxe4 3.Bxe7 Qxe7 4.Bxe4 Bxe4 ) 3.Bxf6 ( 3.e5 dxe5 4.fxe5 Nfe4 5.Bxe7 Qxe7 { leaving white with a weakened pawn
structure (a3,c3,e5) } ) ( 3.Rhe1 Qa5 4.Qf3 Qxa3+ 5.Kd2 b4 ) 3...Bxf6 4.Rhe1?? { Now black proceeds with his attack. White had to
be very creative to find the right defense. } ( 4.e5! dxe5 5.Nxb5! { the
point of e5, now Qd8 feels very uncomfortable under X-Ray from Rd1 } 5...Ke7! 6.fxe5 Bg5+ 7.Kb1 axb5 ( 7...Qb6? 8.Qg3 Bh6 9.Qh4+ ) 8.Qg4 Kf8 9.Bxb5 Qe7 { Tyomkin,D } ) 4...Qa5 { There is no way white can
hold this position together. } 5.e5 dxe5 6.fxe5 Bg5+ 7.Kb1 ( 7.Kb2 Na4+ ) 7...Bd5 { Black has a wide selection of ways to win. } ( 7...Qxa3 { Ftacnik } 8.Bxb5+! ( 8.Nxb5 axb5 9.Bxb5+ Kf8 10.Qg4 ) 8...axb5 9.Nxb5 Qa5 10.Nd6+ Ke7 ) 8.Nb3 ( 8.Qh5 { Ftacnik } 8...Qxa3 9.Qxg5 Na4 10.Bxb5+ axb5 ) 8...Qxa3 9.Bxb5+ axb5 10.Rxd5 Na4! ( 10...Nxb3 11.cxb3 Qxb3+ 12.Ka1 O-O )
0-1

```

---

```
    [Event "Sochi FIDE GP"]
[Site "Sochi"]
[Date "2008.08.14"]
[Round "13"]
[White "Karjakin, Sergey"]
[Black "Radjabov, Teimour"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B78"]
[WhiteElo "2727"]
[BlackElo "2744"]
[Annotator ",User"]
[Setup "1"]
[FEN "2r2k2/1p2pp2/p2p1bp1/q3n2n/3NP1b1/1BN1Q3/PPP5/1K4RR b - - 0 20"]
[Plycount "65"]
[Eventdate "2008.07.31"]
[Eventtype "tourn"]
[Eventrounds "13"]
[Eventcountry "RUS"]
[Eventcategory "19"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[Sourcedate "2008.10.01"]

1...Rxc3!? 2.Qxc3 ( 2.bxc3 { staying in the middlegame might have been a
better option for white } 2...Qc5 3.Rh2 a5 4.Rhg2 Bd7 ) 2...Qxc3 3.bxc3 { at
this stage black would try to improve his pieces, bring his king up and start
pushing his pawn majority on the kingside to create a passed pawn there } 3...e6 4.Bc4 ( 4.Rh2 Ke7 5.Rhg2 Bh3 6.Rd2 g5 { doesn't give much to white } ) 4...Nxc4 5.Rxg4 { this trade does not improve white's position because now
black gets the c4 square for his knight } 5...Be5 6.Rg2 b5 7.Rf2 Kg8 8.a4 ( 8.Rhf1 Ng3 9.Re1 b4! ) 8...bxa4 9.Ka2 Nf6 10.Re2 d5 11.exd5 Nxd5 { now black
has perfectly placed pieces and three passed pawns on the kingside. While
before it was not clear who is better, now it is obvious that black is better,
since white has no counterplay. } 12.Rh3 Bxd4 13.cxd4 Nf4 { winning back one
of the exchanges } 14.Reh2 Nxh3 15.Rxh3 g5 16.Rg3 f6 17.Rc3 Nd2 18.Rd3 Ne4 { now the passed pawns decide the game } 19.c4 Kf7 20.c5 g4 21.c6 Ke7 22.d5 exd5 23.c7 Kd7 24.Rxd5+ Kxc7 25.Rf5 g3 26.Rf4 Kd7 27.Kb2 Ke6 28.Rxe4+ Kf5 29.Re1 Kg4 30.Kc2 g2 31.Kd2 Kg3 32.Ke2 a3 33.Ra1 a2
0-1

```

---

***EXAMPLES OF TACTICAL SACRIFICES***

**1- This game was played between Lasker, Emanuel vs. Bauer, Johann Hermann in 1889.** White sacrifices his double bishop to get a whooping attack on Kingside, and also sacrifices rook later in the game but to regain it and also win the game.

```
[Event "International Tournament"]
[Site "Amsterdam"]
[Date "1889.08.26"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Lasker, Emanuel"]
[Black "Bauer, Johann Hermann"]
[FEN "r4rk1/1b2bppp/ppq1pn2/2ppB3/5P2/1P1BP1N1/P1PPQ1PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 14"]

1.Nh5! { White threatens to
eliminate the king's only defender, and Black can do little to stop him. Bauer,
however, was still unperturbed: he figured that 1...Nxh5 followed by 15...f5
would nip White's shenanigans once and for all. } 1...Nxh5?! { Bauer must have
already written 15.Qxh5 on his score sheet, and contentedly leaned back in his
chair. As you probably already know, Lasker had very different plans. } ( 1...Rfc8 { This move would have been a real spoiler, as White must content himself
with an extra pawn and long-lasting attack after } 2.Nxf6+ Bxf6 3.Bxh7+! Kf8 ( 3...Kxh7 4.Qh5+ Kg8 5.Bxf6 gxf6 6.Qh6! d4 7.Rf3 ) 4.Qg4 { Of
course, Lasker would have had no trouble winning this position as well, but at
least Black could have avoided the double-bishop sacrifice. } ) 2.Bxh7+!! { A
devastating intermezzo. White gives up the pride of his position in order to
damage Black's kingside pawn shell and  -  more importantly  -  mobilize his
queen with check. } ( 2.Qxh5? f5! ) 2...Kxh7 3.Qxh5+ Kg8 { But what now?
The tempting 4.Rf3 is dreadfully slow, and after 4...f6 Black's king will
have a permanent escape route. Of course, Lasker has everything under perfect
control. } 4.Bxg7! { Snap! Crackle! Pop! Amazingly, White gives up another
bishop to destroy the pawn shell. Black has no choice but to recapture, but
his king is sent from the frying pan right into the fire. } 4...Kxg7 ( 4...f6 5.Bh6 Qe8 6.Qg4+ Kh7 7.Qg7# ) 5.Qg4+ { It is crucial to drive the king to
the h-file before mobilizing the rook. The immediate } ( 5.Rf3?? { let Black
off the hook: } 5...Rh8 6.Rg3+ { and now the amazing } 6...Bg5! 7.Qxg5+ ( 7.Rxg5+ Kf6 8.Qg4 d4! ) 7...Kf8 { turns the tables. } ) 5...Kh7 ( 5...Kf6 6.Qg5# ) 6.Rf3 { White threatens Rh3, and it appears that Black is defenseless. To
Bauer's credit, he is able to find an incredibly way to save his monarch from
instant death. } 6...e5! { A miraculous defense: Black's queen will give itself up
to stave off checkmate and eliminate the pernicious rook. As it turns out,
this merely prolongs the agony. } 7.Rh3+ Qh6 8.Rxh6+ Kxh6 9.Qd7! { If
not for this devastating fork, Black would have been very much alive. As it
stands, Black will lose one of his bishops, and White will then have a huge
material advantage in addition to a decisive attack. The rest is fairly clear
without comments. } ( 9.Rf1?! { would have complicated things after } 9...f5! ) 9...Bf6 10.Qxb7 Kg7 11.Rf1 Rab8 12.Qd7 Rfd8 13.Qg4+ Kf8 14.fxe5 Bg7 15.e6 Rb7 16.Qg6 f6 17.Rxf6+! { The last finesse. White crashes through and
wins even more material. It appears that Bauer was simply too shocked to
resign. } 17...Bxf6 18.Qxf6+ Ke8 19.Qh8+ Ke7 20.Qg7+ Kxe6 21.Qxb7 Rd6 22.Qxa6 d4 23.exd4 cxd4 24.h4 d3 25.Qxd3!? { This is some real chessboard sass!
Payback for not resigning, Mr. Bauer. }
1-0

```

---

**2- Here we will see a rare but important tactic:** Interfering with the opponent's pieces.

White has two passed pawns which are close to queening. One is stopped by the black bishop, the other by the rook. White needs to sacrifice a bishop at the intersection of those two lines, forcing Black to decide which pawn to stop - and essentially "pick his poison".

```
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "8/3P4/4k2P/1B2B3/5K2/8/2b5/3r4 w - - 0 1"]

1.Bd3!! { Tadhaa! Sacrificing the bishop but intercepting both blacks Bishop and Rook. Black must capture this bishop one way or another - but either way, one of the pieces' lines will be closed, allowing one of the pawns to queen. } 1...Rxd3 { If the bishop captures the white bishop then the d-pawn will queen. Black could take the d7 pawn with his king, but then White will take the bishop on c2, and win with his passed h-pawn. } 2.h7 { If White played this before, the bishop could just take it. But now the pawns cannot be stopped since the bishop on c2 is blocked } 2...Rh3 { Black stops one pawn... but it's not enough to hold the position. Black had no way to open the bishop on c2, and stop both pawns from promoting at the same time. A truly amazing position! } 3.d8=Q { The rook could not handle both pawns on its own. In this lesson we have learned how to interfere with the opponent's pieces. In endgames, queening a pawn is crucial, and often it is worth it to sacrifice a piece for that end. }
*

```

---

Source: Chess.com

# Answer
> 0 votes
For your run-of-the-mill middle game piece sacrifice, the critical ingredient is a lead in development. Or to have a similar effect by the opponent's pieces being on the wrong side of the board or otherwise cut off from the action.

Only by calculating can you know a position contains a workable sacrifice. Experience helps one recognize the situations where you should start looking harder.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, sacrifice
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to play 1 minute bullet with no increment over the board?
Playing 1 minute bullet games with no increment on the Internet is hard enough, but what about over the board, in real life with an actual wooden board?

Would it be possible, or would 90% of the games end in total chaos with many illegal moves and pieces getting knocked over everywhere?

Would it be possible to have "serious" over the board tournaments played at this time control?

If the answer to the question is no, what about 2 minutes bullet with no increment? Would serious over the board tournaments be possible at this time control?

# Answer
I've played one minute, no increment, over-the-board chess, it definitely can be done. My experience (at least with the opponents I've played with...) has been that it's almost always turned into a huge time scramble with lots of knocked-over pieces, and I can tell you that a substantial fraction of the games I've played at this time control (maybe 20% or so - just a guess off the top of my head) have ended with one player or another making an illegal move - often because they didn't notice that they were in check, or because they tried to move a pinned piece or something and ended up putting themselves in check. Depending on who you are playing with (and your own habits in this regard), I'd personally recommend playing like this only with a clock that you don't really care much about - many of the opponents I've played at this time control have been really rough on the clock...
> 3 votes

# Answer
Well I,myself, have played quite a lot of both 1-minute and 2-minute bullet chess games on a real board. I'd recommend a vinyl board rather than a wooden one, and I have to say it won't end up in total chaos if you have two players who are used to playing 3 minute bullet chess or something alike, so they get used to playing with under a minute on their clocks, and of course who are good enough to be able to think of decent moves with such little time available. (with no increment)
> 1 votes

# Answer
Definitely. To name one, Grandmaster Ben Finegold was astonishingly good at this from a very young age.
> -1 votes

# Answer
Definitely possible. The current world champion Magnus Carlsen does this all the time and with ease -

Hans Bohm vs Magnus Carlsen

Magnus Carlsen vs Lars Monsen
> -1 votes

---
Tags: time-control, illegal-move, bullet-chess
---


title: Find magic numbers for bitboards

text:
# Question
Title: Find magic numbers for bitboards
I am writing a C++ chess engine and I am looking for magic numbers for Little-Endian Rank-File Mapping bitboards to generate moves for sliding pieces.

The rival chess website gives magic numbers but not for the same board mapping.

The chess programming wiki gives some of the best magic numbers so far but is not exhaustive.

At the end I am looking for four things:

* occupancy mask for each square
* magic number for each square
* magic shifts for each square
* moves database array for each square

So I can use the following code to find the moves of the Rook on C3 (for instance):

```
bbBlockers = bbAllPieces & occupancyMaskRook[C3]

databaseIndex = (int)((bbBlockers * magicNumberRook[C3]) >> rookMagicShifts[C3])

bbMoveSquares = magicMovesRook[C3][databaseIndex] & ~bbFriendlyPieces

```

# Answer
This is a very well known problem in chess programming. You should consider use the numbers generated by Pradyumna Kannan. Dr Kannan had kindly produced open-source the magic numbers. It is being used by Crafty and a few other chess engines including my own.

You can read more by google "Crafty magic number".

I've prepared a zipped file for you here. This is the same files being used in the SmallChess chess engine app. Please read the documentation. Basically, you'll need to call *Rmagic(square, occupancy)* for rooks and *Bmagic(square, occupancy)* for bishops. You can XOR those into a queen mask.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: engines, software, programming, bitboard
---


title: Why buy Houdini?

text:
# Question
Title: Why buy Houdini?
Why buy Houdini (or Rybka) if Stockfish is essentially as powerful and also is free?

Are there special features or a nicer GUI? Can't those features be implemented within the Stockfish engine?

# Answer
Some interesting quotes from Maxime Vachiere-Lagrave in New in Chess (2011/5):

About Rybka:

> ... Obviously, each new version improved the engines a little bit, but to my mind the general structure of the programmes remained largely the same. This routine was busted in 2006 with the appearance of Rybka at the highest level. Its main added value compared to the other available engines was an improved assesment function, which made it much more pleasant and actually more efficient to work with. It was simply much more natural and better adapted to the human way of thinking.

About Stockfish:

> To be truthful, I had hardly heard of Stockfish when it appeared, and had hardly ever used it. It is evidently the fastest software around, but to my mind, its assessment function is sometimes back to slightly inhuman.

About Houdini:

> In comparison, the latest newborn, Houdini, is a bit depressing, simply because of this 'equation': the truth x 2 = 1. From the discussions I have had, I can only guess that most top players are now using it as their main engine. The really astonishing thing is how resourceful it is. And contrary to other engines it can, even in what looks like really difficult positions, give an equal assessment, which it backs up with the moves it plays afterwards, which is simply amazing.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I use Critter 1.6a with the Jose database (Macintosh version), I also use Komodo 5.1 and Stockfish for the same database. They all give somewhat varied evaluations and continuations unless there are forcing lines. I have been following the following tournament: http://chessbomb.com/site/ nTCEC Season 2 Stage 2 , the field consists of 19 engines , and Rybka and Houdini are not in the lead! (Houdini and Rybka are equal 9th place.) An engine, Gull 2.2 which I had never heard of, and which is free, is in the lead,(for now).

As far as GUIs are concerned,on a windows computer either Arena (free) or Aquarium will run engine competitions, both have their share of bugs and features.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I recently purchased Houdini 4 Pro Aquarium and given the praise it had received was quite disappointed with it's performance. I set up a number of complex positions for it to solve and it was unable to find a solution whereas the Rybka 4 engine managed to do so. Allan
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: What's the best continuation for white here?
Here's what I do when someone tries to copy my moves:

```
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 d6
*

```

But then my opponent plays `d6`, and I don't know what should I do. What's the best continuation for white after `d6`?

# Answer
You're not down material, so just develop.

`6.d4` allows both your bishops to get in the game while keeping strength in the center. After that, you can develop your minor pieces and castle very efficiently. You're going to have a swell game.

I wouldn't worry too much about `7... f6`. That move weakens his Kingside. And since you're up a pawn, the best he can do is retake on `e5` and give himself an isolated pawn. `8. Bf4` develops a piece and puts an eye on the under-defended `c7` square.

Furthermore, after `Bf4`, you can plan for `Nc3` followed by `O-O-O` (castling on the queenside) where your rook will thunder on the `d` file.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, strategy, petroff-defense
---


title: Can playing against Computer help?

text:
# Question
Title: Can playing against Computer help?
I am a begineer level player on chess.com with rating around 1500. I play daily 2-3 games with `15|10` mins time control for each player. I find it difficult to get time to study chess books, and was thinking of playing against a Chess Engine. I have `Shredder` Chess installed in my system.

How can I make use of it to help improve my games. I set it at the highest strength and play though I have the option to take back and replay my moves. How to make the best use of the Chess engines?

# Answer
> 8 votes
For computer engines it is much harder to simulate a "human" style than just playing good. If you want to improve your play against humans, play against humans. Use the engines to analyze your games. As already commented, fast or blitz games (but please not faster that ~5 min, as the "quality" of the games decreases rapidly at this point) are a good way to learn to "see" quickly dangers and opportunities, and to have more tactics as usual on the board (as positional play becomes only important after you don't lose most games tactically).

I recommend lichess.org, which is free and offers (at least) three nice features: Computer assisted error checking after games, training positions from real games, and invitation by eMail

# Answer
> 3 votes
A computer chess engine obviously shows or plays the best move according to its strength. But in accordance to your improvement in chess given the fact you are a beginner, playing against the highest strength computer might not help you to have the best results. Chess from human point of view and computers point of view are very much different though obviously the rules are same.

As you are a beginner let me explain you how computer thinks and how beginners should. A chess engine plays its best move, by calculating thousands of positions, and many variations from a single position. All it does is Math and because it is a computer it does it quick and accurate. But beginners can't do that. It is needed to learn the various concepts and ideas of chess to understand a particular position and your improvement in chess depends on how well you understand a particular position.

Let's say you are playing against computer and you end up in a bad position so you take back your moves and make other moves, and then again somewhere end up in a bad position. This does not help you to understand what is going wrong in your chess or how can u improve or what is your actual strength, because how much ever you try, you end up in bad positions because obviously the strength of the engine is so high up to the level of GrandMaster or even higher.

Use your chess engine to analyze your game after you finish it. Playing games of 15:10 time control is good for beginners, do no go into blitz now but a couple of games now and then is fine for fun. Its good for you to play long time control games because there you have more time to think and understand positions occurring from it. You will have time to think of a proper plan which you think is best for a position and then you can make your move accordingly. This also helps in analysis after the game. While analyzing, when chess engine shows some other moves/variation as a better one.. check that line(variation) out completely and there you can find what the plan of the computer was and how was it different from your plan for that particular position.

Check this great article, it helps you with various aspects of chess and helps you plan your study in chess from the level of beginners to Advanced. :)

**http://www.chess.com/article/view/study-plan-directory**

# Answer
> 2 votes
I play against a computer and humans regularly. The difference is that a computer is quite happy to throw the 'rule' book away and just do what works in a given position, whereas humans can get fixated on particular ideas.

As an example, I was analysing a position involving a pawn 1 square from promotion. All of the humans were focussed on finding a way to get the pawn to queen, but completely overlooked a completely different tactic forcing mate. It's good to start thinking like this 'unconstrained' way.

The other thing that computers are good at is defending. Even strong human players can crumble quickly in the face of a seemingly overwhelming attack. Computers don't get emotional and can keep finding 'must' moves to keep the game alive (which is extremely annoying), you can learn a lot about the art of defense by playing a computer from a position where you have sacrificed significant material for an attack.

# Answer
> 1 votes
As stated above, I would stick to playing games against real people and then analyzing them with your computer engine.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I have a game on my phone and I play face to face a few times a month. When playing against an AI keep in mind that the AI runs through every possible move that can be made then choose the best in its favor. The options it generates is limited to the level it's on. IE level 1 usually means it thinks for 1 second versus thinking for 12 seconds on level 12. Unlike a human this could cause it to capture a pawn that's in front of a rook on its third play. Not a joke this happens rarely but on low levels it will happen. I also have it set to offer to resign to let me know when it sees defeat but I don't except so I can get in the practice of taking all of its pieces before checkmate or draw.

Edit Playing on the highest level means every move the AI makes has been calculated through to checkmate. Lower it to a level you can't dominate then increase as you become able to dominate it. Don't back up a single play. Play until you see losing is unavoidable then back up to where you think you made your worst mistake. Also play face to face as often as possible, being able to see an opponent's reaction to taking a piece can tell you if it was a key to his attack or defense while the AI probably will only think less than half of a second longer.

---
Tags: opening, learning, engines, endgame, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: If I accidentally knock over a rook with my elbow while reaching for another piece, do I have to move the rook?
According to the official FIDE rules for otb games, does the above description warrant the touch move rule?

# Answer
No.

The relevant part in FIDE's Laws of Chess is Article 4.3 which contains the word *deliberately*.

> 4.3 Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move deliberately touches on the chessboard:
>
> a. one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched which can be moved
>
> b. one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched which can be captured
>
> c. one piece of each colour, he must capture the opponent’s piece with his piece or, if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched which can be moved or captured. If it is unclear, whether the player’s own piece or his opponent’s was touched first, the player’s own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his opponent’s.

The situation you describe once happened to a team mate of mine. The opponent wanted him to move the touched piece according to the rule, but the arbiter explained it had to be deliberate.
> 13 votes

# Answer
I think the key word is elbow. Unless you were previously moving pieces with your elbow then the touch rule wouldn't apply. Disputes of this kind without a judge can easily be avoided by what we call in my area "you break it you bought it". You can touch a piece as long as you don't lift it from the board.
> -3 votes

---
Tags: learning, rules, otb-chess
---


# Question
Title: Is it theoretically possible for Carlsen to reach Elo 3000?
Magnus Carlsen just reached a rating of 2889.2 today. Considering the way that Elo works, inflation and deflation and relative strength of Carlsen, I was wondering whether it is *theoretically* possible for him to reach Elo 3000? If so, is it *practically* possible?1

---

1. I know my second question is a bit opinion based, but I actually want to know your opinions!

# Answer
The average Elo rating of the e.g. top 10 players in the world is rising every year. I think that the relative distance between the number one rated player and the other 9 players in the top 10 becomes relevant in this context. This distance can be estimated by subtracting the average of the ratings of the 9 players (ranked 2-10 in the world) from the rating of the top player (today, Carlsen) and dividing this by the rating of the top player.

Increasing this distance is difficult for the top rated player, because every new game played by the top player has a certain amount of risk and uncertainty. I think that Carlsen will have a hard time reaching an Elo rating of 3000 exclusively by increasing the distance to the players ranked 2-10. Yet, if the relative distance stays the same of the following years and the average rating of the top 10 continues to increase, then it is definitely possible for Carlsen to reach Elo 3000. The second ranked player at that moment would probably have around Elo 2950.
> 8 votes

# Answer
It's not so hard: he only needs to beat 2800 players 50% of the time ( drawing the other 50% which will give him 75% of total points).

Given his record, this does not seem practically likely.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Theoretically, yes very much so, if Carlsen organised a 100 game match between himself and a 2100 rated player(who he theoretically has a 99.99% chance of beating in each game) and for each win he'd get a rating gain of one elo (by Fide calculations), then that'd be a 100 elo gain putting him at say 2977 or thereabout...so all he's got to do is organise a 150 game match.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rating, elo, carlsen
---


# Question
Title: Caro-Kann continuation for Black in this position
I would like to ask your help regarding this position. I played as Black in this game in a tournament and it has ended in a draw by repetition.

Now I fear that I may encounter this position again, so I would like to ask help about what are the plans for Black in this position and what should I do if White decides to put his Queen to h3?

```
[Title "Caro-Kann continuation and plans for Black"]
[StartPly "36"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 c6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 dxe4
4. Nxe4 Bf5
5. Ng3 Bg6
6. h4 h6
7. Nh3 Nf6
8. Nf4 Bh7
9. Bc4 e6
10. O-O Be7
11. c3 O-O
12. Re1 Nd5
13. Qh5 Qd6
14. Qg4 Nf6
15. Qf3 Nd5
16. Qg4 Nf6
17. Qd1 Nd5
18. Qg4 Nf6

```

Thanks!

**UPDATE** Regarding the issue with move 13, I actually couldn't remember if it was a blunder or just a move order issue. But my point is after move 18, what plans should be followed by Black in order to play actively?

# Answer
> 1 votes
I'm wondering about the purpose of 13... Qd6. Seems a waste of time to me. What's wrong with grabbing the pawn? White's 13. Qh5 is a simple mistake.

And about the point that "draw with Black is as good as a win" - it is *not*. You should aim for a win with both sides and also ignore rating gaps. I've given up the habit of looking at my opponent's rating before the game. Just play.

# Answer
> -1 votes
draw because you are black and a draw as black is equal to a win. Depends on your rating. If by a hundred and less no problem. But more than that you have to play for that win by playing Nd7, not Nd5

---
Tags: caro-kann
---


title: Pieces knocked over in blitz chess

text:
# Question
Title: Pieces knocked over in blitz chess
In blitz (lightning) chess: If my opponent knocks over a piece when moving then presses his clock before replacing the piece is this illegal? If so do I stop the clock and call the DOP?

# Answer
According to FIDE Handbook:

> Article 7: Irregularities
>
> 7.4
>
> If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position in his own time. If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the chessclock and ask for the arbiter’s assistance. The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces.

That means, yes, you can stop the clock and call the arbiter for your assistance if he did not adjust the pieces in his own time.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: blitz
---


# Question
Title: Does anyone know the anecdote about Ostap Bender?
every now and then I have heard the saying "1. e2-e4 -- The favorite opening move of Ostap Bender." In Alexei Kornev's book "A practical white repertoire with 1. d4 and c4" the author writes:

> Ostap Bender is the picaresque hero of the hugely popular Russian comic novel “The Twelve Chairs” (1928) by Ilf and Petrov. It is still not widely known in the West, despite the efforts of, for instance, Mel Brooks, who made a film adaptation of it in 1970.

Unfortunately, I have not read the novel (has it anything to do with chess?) and I also have not watched the film by Mel Brooks (I only know "Spaceballs"). Ostap Bender even has a Wikipedia entry but it does not explain why his favorite opening move is supposed to be e4.

Could anyone please explain what it is all about Ostap Bender and the move e4?

# Answer
> 6 votes
As a person who read the book, I will explain:

So Bender is a con-artist from the book, and as any person of such kind he tries to transfer money from other people to himself. He has done a lot of such things in the book, but you are interested in the chess part. In this part Bender came to some average small city and was looking for a way to get some money. He found a chess club, where he decided to play chess having no idea how to do so. His idea was to create a simultaneous match with as many opponents as possible.

He called himself a GM, wrote an ads where he told that he (GM) a lesson of how to play chess and will play a simul game on 100+ chessboards. Take your chessboards, pay fee for a game, fee for an entrance and you good.

Before he started the game, he was able to persuade the owners of chess club to give him all the money by explaining them his idea how to make their city and their chess club one of the most profitable. He told that he would you all his connections in chess world (he is GM, who knows Lasker and Capablanka) to organize next world chess tournament in their city which will eventually makes it better than Moscow, New York and will give huge amount of money.

Back to simul games. When people came - he started to abstractly speak about chess, how cool the game is, how is it connected to everything without any details. Then he started his games. Because he had no knowledge how to play, he decided to play 'solid' e2-e4 (he new that he can not lose straight after that move).

So he played e2-e4 with everyone. His games were not long, soon he lost to the first guy, was doing mistakes with chess movements, tried to steal a piece and so on. He lost to almost every player and ran away.

P.S. it might not be 95% accurate and looks like a starting place for my own book, so do not be mad with inaccuracies.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The answer is the book that's actually referenced in the wikipedia article. In chapter thirty four. Bender moves the king pawn two spaces in all the games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Twelve\_Chairs

http://lib.ru/ILFPETROV/ilf\_petrov\_12\_chairs\_engl.txt

PS: Life of Brian was Monty Python, not Mel Brooks.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Refer to page 145 of The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal

---
Tags: famous-players, fiction
---


# Question
Title: Caro-Kann Bronstein-Larsen Variation For Black
Any good references (books/videos/tutorials) for this variation?

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

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6

```

Thanks!

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you read Danish there's Bent Larsen's *Solide åbninger* (Solid openings) from 1980.

It is a repertoire book for beginners (white and black) and suggests the line you inquire about as the defense against `1. e4`.

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


# Question
Title: Yes or no: should a 'reverse' Ruy Lopez be played as black?
I'm currently learning the Ruy Lopez opening and typical defences. But every single example I've seen, it is played as white.

Is there any reason why you cannot or shouldn't play Ruy Lopez as black, moving the bishop to b4?

If so, what initial moves by white would preclude or make opening with Ruy Lopez inadvisable when playing as black?

# Answer
I think that this question comes from a fundamental misunderstanding that many beginners have but more experienced players don't even notice, which I wrote about in this answer.

The short version is that openings describe moves made by both players, not by one player. The Ruy Lopez is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5, not "1.e4, then 2.Nf3, then 3.Bb5".

Given this, there is no real way to "play the Ruy Lopez as Black", since you're a move behind. The only theoretical way you could get to that position is something like 1.e3 e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4, which would never happen.

...Bb4 mostly makes sense when 1) there is a knight on c3 and you want to undermine its support of e4 and d5, or 2) by checking you can force White to interpose a piece or pawn in an awkward way. These situations do come up but none of them are a "Ruy Lopez as Black".
> 9 votes

# Answer
The opening known as Ruy Lopez is characterized by white playing 3.Bb5 after 1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6. There are lines where black plays Bb4, but these aren't called Ruy Lopez.

For Bb4/Bb5 to make much sense, there has to be a Knight on c3/c6. Consequently one possibility of Bb4 for black occurs in the Four-Knights-Game, where this is actually the mainline and considered to be equalizing for black:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: opening, ruy-lopez
---


# Question
Title: Are there any hypermodern openings for white
I just want to ask if there is any kind of hypermodern opening for white. For black, i usually play benko gambit and alekhine defense, so preferably, I am opting for a tactical opening

# Answer
> 9 votes
A hypermodern opening in chess is one whose strategy controls the centre from the outside. For instance fianchettoed bishops \[b3 or g3 followed by Bb2 or Bg2\] can do this. Central pawn moves are delayed till later on.

Specifically a hypermodern opening for white could be 1. b3 and then 2. Bb2 called Larsen's Opening or the Nimzowitsch attack. The idea is to use the Bb2 bishop along its diagonal, especially if black castles kingside. For instance the opening could go:

```
  [FEN ""]
  1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 d5 4. Bb5 Bd6 5. f4 Qh4+ 6. g3 Qe7 *

```

This is quite a well known opening position in Larsen's attack. White's move 5. f4 is important - white is attacking black's centre. A common continuation is for white to eventually castle o-o-o queenside and black to castle kingside with equal chances of mutual attack. Larsen was a GM who used this opening with great success with one exception! His loss to Spassky: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1128831

Another hypermodern opening is to play 1. Nc3 and 2. Nf3 as white and provoke black into chasing your knights with black's pawns. This is rather humorously called the Napoleon attack after Napoleon's horses!! Though I am pretty sure that he never played it!

Another hypermodern opening is the King's Indian Attack - a King's Indian formation as white:

```
   [FEN ""]
   1. Nf3  Nf6  2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 c5 4. d3 Nc6 5. O-O e5 6. Nbd2 Be7 7. e4 O-O 8. Qe2 *

```

Fischer used this with success. There are many hypermodern white openings that let black put pawns in the centre to make a target for white to attack. This is a small taste of them here.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Considering hypermodern opening as White is very often just a copy of Black hypermodern strategy with a tempo up, which is mainly based on putting your bishop(s) in fianchetto. For instance, you have for White, "Larsen opening" 1.b3 or "Réti opening" 1.Cf3 and next 2.g3 or 1.g3.

Also you have sicilian-type opening, which gives you for White : 1.c4

# Answer
> 5 votes
Arguably, the "original" hyper Modern opening was the Reti opening. named after Richard Reti who introduced, or at least popularized it. It was *White's* opening, and began Nf3. If Black responded d5, White might or might not respond c4. Instead, he might play 2. g3, then Bg2 for an early fianchetto and castling.

1. Nf3 has the effect of deterring e5, unless Black first supports it with e.g. d6. But when Black plays Nf6 in the Alekhine, it is after White has played e4, which means that White has the option to chase the knight with e5.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I found this called Czyzewski Opening. (I do not know how, in this case black should react.)

```
  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 e5 2. b3 *

```

Source: http://maciejczyzewski.me/2015/05/05/czyzewski-opening-a-hypermodern-chess-variation.html

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: What is the strongest reply to Czyzewski Opening?
I was exploring *hypermodern* openings and had found **Czyzewski Opening**.

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.b3

```

How I should react to this type of situation on the board. Is this some kind of trap?

# Answer
2.b3 is so vanishingly rare after 1.e4 e5 that you really should not bother preparing anything against it unless you have a friend who plays it all the time or something. Emms in *Play the Open Games as Black*, a repertoire book for Black after 1.e4 e5, does not even mention it.

> How I should react to this type of situation on the board.

*Bologan's Black Weapons in the Open Games* suggests starting with 2...Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4, which seems as good as anything.

> Is this some kind of trap?

No.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis
---


title: How do I create pgn files visually?

text:
# Question
Title: How do I create pgn files visually?
I'm looking for a way to create PGN files visually - so I don't want to type in the position and the moves manually, but I want to set up an initial position on a board, play some moves and then export that as a PGN file. Actually, I'm ok even if I can't play moves, but I do want to be able to setup the board and then export it either as a FEN or PGN string or file. I've seen the online tool http://www.chess.com/analysis-board-editor, but is there anything I can use offline? I'm on windows. And I would prefer free/open source.

# Answer
What you are looking for is a chess GUI. These are some decent, free alternatives:
> 3 votes

# Answer
I also found that SCID, the chess GUI I was already using has this feature as well. Ctl+Sh+S allows me to set up a position.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I've been using fritz and that serves your purpose.

After you have installed fritz go to little arrow below the 'new game' and click on 'position setup'. After you finish setting your position, there is an option called 'copy FEN' on the same window and you can use that.

And if you want PGN, after setting up the position click OK, make moves you want to and click on 'copy game'and the pgn will be copied to the clip board and you can paste anywhere you want to.
> 2 votes

# Answer
You can try the online chess editor http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php
> 1 votes

---
Tags: pgn, fen
---


# Question
Title: Reversed Sicilian - What's wrong with my plan?
I played this game in a tournament and lost.

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

1.c4 e5 {Starting the reversed sicilian} 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 6. Nf3 Nge7 7. O-O O-O 8. Rb1 h6 {Finished the Closed Sicilian setup that I want: h6, Nc6, Ne7, O-O, Bg7, g6, and the d6-e5 pawn chain. This is the exact reverse of Karpov's Closed Sicilian when he is white} 9. b4 {I always want this move by my opponent when playing the Closed Sicilian because his Knight can be a target, but I also needed to oppose his queenside plan, though I was not really sure how to do that. I was thinking that I should try to close the queenside so that I can focus on my attack on the kingside} a6 {I couldn't think of any good way to frustrate his queenside attack, so I played this move because I have seen this in some Karpov's games, but I don't really know its purpose, I just "hope" that I can close the queenside in the future with this move} 10. a4 f5 {Started to attack his unsupported Knight} 11. b5 axb5 12. axb5 Nb8 {I did not know where to put my Knight, but I was thinking that the c5 square will be a good outpost for my Knight, so I retreated to b8} 13. Qb3 Be6 {The purpose of this move is to prevent a possible discovered check} 14. Nd2 Nd7 {Preparing to post my knight to the c5 square, so my b-pawn can't be taken because of the fork threat} 15. Ba3 Rb8 16. Na4 b6 {Closing the queenside at last} 17. Nc3 f4 {Starting my attack on the kingside. My plan is to post a Knight to d4 via the f5 square, then after posting the Knight to the d4 square, I was thinking of attacking the f3 and the e2 squares} 18. Nde4 Nf5 19. Qc2 Nd4 20. Qd1 Nf6 {Vacating the d7 square for my Queen, I was also thinking about removing my opponent's light-squared Bishop to help my attack on the f3 and the e2 squares} 21. Nxf6 Qxf6 22. Nd5 Bxd5 {Now my time trouble has started. I was thinking about putting my queen to Qf7, but after that, there was nothing that I could do to remove his Knight. Then I thought that by simplifying things, I can win a pawn by playing Nc2 at move 27, yes I calculated that, but unfortunately it was a blunder.} 23. Bxd5+ Kh7 24. e3 fxe3 25. fxe3 Qxf1 26. Qxf1 Rxf1 27. Kxf1 Nc2??? {I thought I could win a pawn here that's why I started simplifying things starting from move 22, so I played this move very quick, and immediately after playing this move I realized that I already lost the game} 28. Bc1 e4 29. Bxe4 d5 30. cxd5 h5 31. Ke2 Bf8 32. Bb2 Na3 33. Rf1 Nxb5 34. Rf7+ Kg8 35. Bxg6 Ra8 36. Be5 1-0

```

I have added comments at the following moves: 1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, and 27
I don't really understand how to handle the pawn structures at the queenside.
Is there something wrong with my plans, my thinking process?
My opponent claimed that he was winning the middle game, but I think he was wrong, I think I was winning the middle game here. Am I wrong?

Thanks!

# Answer
* `8. ... h6` was unprovoked. Until White threatens to double Q+B on a c1-h6 diagonal, or places the piece ag `g5`, there is no reason to weaken the Kingside. The plan calls for immediate `8. ... f5`, e.g. `8... f5 9. Bg5 h6 10. Bh4`, and it is up to Black to decide between `10. ... g5` and `10. ... Bf6`, whichever suites your style.

Along the same lines `9. ... a6` seems off. Black shouldn't help White in opening Queenside files. If you want to secure Queenside, `8. ... a5` is in order of the day.
* Did you consider `12. ... e4`?
> 3 votes

# Answer
A few pointers, it wasnt a reversed sicilian per se, fianchettoing your dark square bishop gave you a kings indian vs English opening type position, and in such structures your knight on c6 is always going to get hit by b5, its best retreat being to the e7 square since your play is on the kingside and your likely to go g5 at some point then get in Ne7-g6 etc, in this regard, your knight on g8 should go to f6(keeping the e7 square free for the c6 knight) then later (yes you'd have to spend some tempi going Nf6-e8 or d7) play f5-f4 n g5 etc, this is one of afew ways to play that position
> 0 votes

---
Tags: closed-position, english-opening
---


title: Equalize - What does it really mean?

text:
# Question
Title: Equalize - What does it really mean?
We often read or hear in books or video tutorials the following: "With this move, Black can equalize!". Some authors give 15-move or 20-move variations of some openings (e.g. Caro-Kann, Slav, Semi-Slav), then suddenly stop the explanation saying "...and Black managed to equalize".

Now, does "equalize" mean that Black should aim for "draw" at the start of the game? Should Black keep trying to "equalize" or "playing for draw" and wait for White to blunder then only star to think about how to win?

Does "equalize" mean that Black should try to exchange queens as early as possible?

Thanks!

# Answer
> 10 votes
This is a good question, because equality in chess is a tricky concept.

From a theoretical point of view there are only three evaluations of position: "White is winning", "black is winning" and "it's a draw". So, when we talk about white being better or black having a "slight pull", these evaluations are heuristics that mirror our experience of who is having the better practical chances and by what degree.

This also means that evaluations of the same position by different players can be quite different and often it is difficult to decide who is "more right".

So, when an author declares, that black has equalised, he means that he considers black's chances to not be worse any more. This doesn't say anything about the nature of the position. For example some GMs would argue that in the king's gambit, after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef black has already equalised. But obviously the position isn't drawish in the least, there is still a big fight ahead.

The idea that "trying to equalise first" is the same as "playing for a draw", comes from the fact, that it is often easiest to equalise by careful simplification. So there is a slightly artificial dichotomy between "trying to equalise first" and "going for a sharp fight". I call it slightly artificial because nowadays, especially among top players, the easiest way to equalise is often to go for the sharpest, most forcing lines.

As for what you should do: In my experience you should always try to develop counterplay, even if you are completely happy with a draw. If you can create even a slight initiative it is usually not difficult to exchange into a completely equal and drawish position. Whether exchanging queens should be your goal, depends entirely on the position.

In the end, how much risk you take is completely your decision. Some players try to go for the win straight away, even with black. Others want to play with the draw in hand, especially with white.

# Answer
> 8 votes
> Some authors give 15-move or 20-move variations of some openings (e.g. Caro-Kann, Slav, Semi-Slav), then suddenly stop the explanation saying "...and Black managed to equalize".

"Black managed to equalize" means that, at least in the opinion of the speaker, that particular variation failed to preserve White's advantage. So, as White, don't use it! As Black, try to lull White into it.

The concept has nothing to do with draw vs. win or exchanging queens, though exchanging queens can be a way to equalize.

# Answer
> 7 votes
At the professional level, White has an advantage caused by moving first. Professionals are adept at squeezing every efficiency from every move. Equalizing means that Black has managed to neutralize White's opening advantage and any gained benefit. Thus, it means both players have the same chance of winning.

# Answer
> 2 votes
In my opinion, "equalize" means the same number of piece developed, equal control in the center and equal initiative.

(For example, you have a piece which play a double role {attack and defence}, a piece which play one role{attack}, and a piece with {defence} role, and the opponent have 3 pieces with same roles as yours).

# Answer
> 1 votes
Why has an advantage by virtue of having the first move. Not enough to win, but enough to be a "favorite."

If and and when Black "equalizes," the chances of winning are more or less equal; White is no longer a clear favorite.

Exchanging queens may or may not be the solution. In many cases, White may have the better endgame after queens are traded. In others, exchanging queens is enough for equality if White's advantage consisted solely of better queen mobility.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, positional-play
---