# Question
Title: Making sense of Scid vs. PC tree score statistics
I can't seem to figure out how to interpret the score statistics when browsing a chess database with Scid vs. PC.

To give an example, the following is a position from the ICOfY chess database tree browsed with Scid vs. PC:

In the above position White is to play and the move **Nc3** is shown as yielding a score of 27%. I.e. Black is winning by a wide margin. However, when I click on the **Nc3** move I am faced with the following screen:

... which paints a widely different picture for Black's prospects. Namely, showing a score of 46% for Black's most common reply (i.e. Black is only slightly better if I interpret the statistics correctly). Am I right in thinking that these statistics are not consistent with one another or am I failing to grasp something? Bonus point if you can explain why the *Event* description (lower left corner) is a series of question marks.

# Answer
> 7 votes
The statistics show what happened in games that reached the current *position*.

So in your first diagram, there are 28 games that reached that position. White scored 30.3% on average in those games. In 11 of them, Nc3 was played here, and White scored 27.2% in those 11 games.

The position after Nc3 was reached 72 times. That obviously includes the 11 games from above, but also 61 other games that reached this position in a different order of moves. And in these 72 together, white scored 52.7%.

That's not inconsistent, you can go through the list of games yourself and verify the numbers.

What it is, is an example why looking at move statistics can be very misleading. The fact that white scored only 30.3% from the first position doesn't mean that black is winning **at all**. You don't even know that a single one of those results had anything to do with the opening! There could be all kinds of reasons for the results, maybe black was the much better player in all of them, or there were some white blunders, or who knows what.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

---
Tags: software, database, scid
---


# Question
Title: how to keep an offline database of my own games
What would be the most standard way to keep an offline database of my online and over the board games?

Would just keeping PGN files (with arbitrary filenames) in a directory work? Would database browser programs like Scid vs. Pc then be able to browse such a collection of files? or do I need other tools to generate a database out of a collection of PGN files? Is there a file-naming convention for the PGN files I have to be aware of?

The database browsing tool I use is Scid vs. Pc which I run in Ubuntu under wine but I am open to other suggestions as well.

# Answer
PGN files is definitely the best way to go. PGN is an open and human readable format. Merging two PGN files is very easy; simply copy the content of one PGN file to the end of another.

How you want to organize your PGN files is up to you. You may want to store your PGN files all in one directory, or you may want to store them in separate directories (based on tournament, opening, result, side, etc.) under the same root directory.

ScidvsPc has the capability to browse through directories and select games you want to view. You can also manually browse the directories and double clicking the pgn will open the game directly in ScidvsPc (if you have set it up to work that way).

There is no file naming convention for PGN files. You don't need any special tools to create a single database from PGN files. Since you're on Ububtu, you can use the capabilities of the Linux sed tool to merge files recursively under a root directory.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: software, pgn, database, linux
---


# Question
Title: Aronian vs Anand World Championship Candidates 2014 Round 8. Is White better after 19.f4.
This game occurred between Aronian and Anand today at the World Championship Candidates 2014 event. In the final position, instead of **19. Nd2**, Aronian could have continued with **19.f4**. He was a pawn up, so I don't see the necessity to repeat moves. Is White better after 19.f4!?

```
    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
    [Event "World Championship Candidates 2014"]
    [White "Aronian"]
    [Black "Anand"]

    1. c4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Qb3 d4 4. e3 c5 5. Qb5+ Nc6 6. Qxc5 e5 7. Qb5 a6
    8. Qb3 Bc5 9. d3 Nf6 10. e4 O-O 11. Be2 Bb4+ 12. Nbd2 a5 13. O-O Nd7
    14. Qd1 Bd6 15. Ne1 Nc5 16. Nb3 Na6 17. Nd2 Nc5 18. Nb3 Na6 19. Nd2 (19. f4!?)

```

# Answer
I am not even close to a decent level in chess, therefore you have to be really skeptical to what I am going to write here. But here is my ~2000 rated opinion:

> Black is not winning after 19.f4, is he?

This is kind of funny to state that black is winning here. This is just 19-th move (so people just went out of the opening), which means that the game just began and most of the previous moves were not actually a real game. Yes, white is a pawn up, but pawn up in the opening does not really counts for too much (mobility of pieces, clear vision of what to do next, preparation of the line, your mood and confidence and many more things should be counted here).

> Why did he choose to draw instead?

No one can tell you except of him. But here are my thoughts:

He already lost to Anand and Anand is a current tournament leader so why gamble and stress yourself in this situation? Having a draw, you secure yourself 5 points which puts you on the same position as a leader. With few possible advantages:

* there is no more Anand anymore
* you are not stressed and got your points from the game
* you have more time to rest, prepare yourself for future games

Also, as you saw from game analysis the position is equal, but unbalanced. Playing the game, you will be really stressed and most probably after additional 1 - 1.5 hours of thoughts you will end up in a draw. Or may be win. Or lose. So why do you need this?

Look at the game Anand vs Svidler in round 7. Both have spend a lot of nerves playing really hard an unbalanced position just ending up in a draw. Approximately 2 hours of hard thought for 2 points. And here Aronian can get them basically for free.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, anand, aronian
---


# Question
Title: What is the strongest chess engine for blitz time controls?
There are all kinds of lists of the strongest chess engines at standard time controls. Here's one I picked more or less at random. But does anyone track which engines are strongest at faster time controls, say, game in 5 minutes?

# Answer
As @FranS points out, the CCRL 40/4 list I linked to fits the bill pretty well. I was digging around on a lot of sites and must have thought that this one was showing results for 40 moves in 4 hours. I'm leaving the question up rather than deleting it in case someone comes along with the same question later.

Also, by following some links on the question that @Salvador Dali linked to I learned that there was an event called The World Computer Speed Chess Championship that seems to have died after 2011.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, blitz
---


title: Four way chess Checkmate

text:
# Question
Title: Four way chess Checkmate
I don't know how many people play four way chess, but do you have to checkmate an opponent's king or actually kill it to take over his army?

# Answer
> 2 votes
According to this site you can play Four way chess with the same rules that you play in a classical game (include the notion of checkmate) with the difference that all queens will start on white squares. All pieces have the same movements than on the regular chess, the first player to start is the white pieces play continues clockwise around the board each player moving one piece per turn.

Also according to this, you can play two variants of Four way chess:

1. Regicide rules;
2. Classical Rules.

Quoting the site:

*Regicide rules:*

> Regicide means to kill the king, in Regicide Rules you must actually capture both enemy kings to win, rather than just checkmate them. When a players king is captured the rest of his pieces remain exactly where they are on the board and cannot move, except to capture another piece, or you may pass on any move after your king is captured. Your team must kill both the enemy kings to win. In Regicide Rules the king is a fighting piece too, so you dont have to get out of check and checkmate does not apply, and you dont have to announce check. You can even move into check. You can also castle out of check, through check, or into check.

and with the classical rules:

> When one player is checkmated on his turn all his pieces are removed from the board and his two opponents armies combine into one army for movement purposes, being allowed one move from either color per move that the defeated players partner gets. This is how we used to play but now we usually play Regicide Rules.

---
Tags: checkmate, chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: How should I play the Old Benoni Defense as both White and Black?
```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 c5 2. d5

```

A lot of people play it against me as black, and I am also interested in it for both sides.

What are some of the main lines? Also, what are some of the key positions and ideas?

# Answer
As white I have had a pretty easy time following up with the moves c4 - Nc3 - e4 - f4. Black will usually play e6 and exd5 - respond with cxd5. White ends up with a ton of space in the center. Look up the Taimanov variation in particular.

Basically I got this from MCO15 - the author mentions that many players use a different move order to reach the Benoni just to avoid this setup (they wait for white to play Nf3 blocking the f pawn).
> 6 votes

# Answer
> How should I play the Old Benoni Defense as both White and Black?

**Aggressively.**

Let me justify that a little. The Benoni is a *very* combative opening from both sides of the board. Many lines are extremely sharp, especially in the Old Benoni where White has all kinds of weapons at his disposal, like the ultra-sharp Taimanov (`1.d4 c5 2.d5 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+`):

```
[Opening "Benoni, Taimanov Variation"]
[FEN "rnbqk2r/pp3pbp/3p1np1/1BpP4/4PP2/2N5/PP4PP/R1BQK1NR b KQkq - 2 8"]

```

In modern lines, Black usually waits a move or two before playing `...c5`, to avoid some of the more popular "anti-Benoni" systems. Specifically, Black often wants White to commit a Knight to `f3`, so that there's no immediate fear of `f2-f4`. However, the Old Benoni is certainly still playable as long as you're ready for a highly tactical struggle.

---

## General Thoughts

In the main lines, Black usually plays `...e6` and then exchanges his e-pawn for White's d-pawn. This gives Black a queenside majority and White a central/kingside one. Black will then blockade the advanced d-pawn by playing `...d6`, and then usually fianchetto the King Bishop to take advantage of the strong diagonal controlled by his pawns on `c5` and `d6`. Meanwhile, White will use his advantage in space to make threats in the center and on the kingside.

This opening presents a variety of opportunities for tactical combinations. Because the center is semi-closed by the pawns on `c4`, `c5`, `d5`, and `d6`, it can be difficult to effectively switch pieces from one side of the board to the other, especially for Black, who has less space in which to operate. This tends to result in a game where counterattack is easier and more productive than defense.

---

## As White

White's most important positional advantage in the Benoni is his central pawn majority. In particular, the threat of White's eventual `e4-e5` is often a major point of contention for the early part of the game. White normally will castle kingside and play `Re1` to support this advance, and may also play `f2-f4` as well.

As the game progresses, White may also find a variety of very strong central outposts for his Knights, depending on which pawn advances Black ends up making. `c4` and `e4` are often good candidates, and sometimes even `b5`.

White enjoys extra space in the center and on the kingside, so his general plan is usually to pressure the center until he can either break through there, or spill over onto Black's castle. Besides the `e4-e5` pawn push, White may also put pressure on Black's backward pawn on `d6` with moves like `Nc4`, `Nb5`, and sometimes `Bf4`.

Since Black will frequently be trying to make headway on the queenside, White has an interest in preventing him from gaining much space over there. To this end, White often plays `a2-a4` and may try to land a piece on `b6` to prevent Black's `b7-b5`. If White can manage to maneuver a *Rook* to `b6`, Black will be very hard-pressed to hold onto his backwards d-pawn. Tactics involving sacrifices on `d6` are also relatively common, where White can make his central pawns into passers by force, and from there drive the game home.

```
[White "Jonathan Penrose"]
[Black "Mikhail Tal"]
[FEN "1rb1r1k1/2qn1pbp/3p2p1/1pnP4/2p1PP2/2N1B1NP/1PB2QP1/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1.e5!

```

---

## As Black

Black has two key weapons in this opening: his queenside pawn majority and the half-open e-file. Because White's pawn center is fairly advanced, these two factors can combine to allow Black to undermine the White center with well-timed queenside pawn thrusts (`...c5-c4` is often a very potent threat), or else simply break through on the queenside while White is occupied elsewhere.

As his opponent will often be looking to play `e4-e5`, Black should usually put some effort into preventing this move, either by pressuring the `d5` pawn or (more usually) by contesting `e5` itself, taking advantage of the half-open file against White's pawn on `e4` (in lines where White plays `f2-f4`, this pawn is even *backwards*, making it even more of a target). Black normally castles kingside and plays `...Re8` relatively early to assist in this endeavor.

White's d-pawn is a bit of a thorn in Black's position, making it sometimes unclear where Black should place his queenside minor pieces. Black's Queen-Knight often develops to `d7` and eventually to `e5`, to blockade White's `e4-e5` advance, but sometimes instead Black can play `...Nb8-a6-c7` to put some pressure on `d5` and support a `b7-b5` advance, or this Knight may land on a `b4` outpost after White has played `a2-a4`. Black's Queen Bishop usually gets played either to `g4` (and then is often traded for a White Knight on `f3` to make `e4-e5` more difficult), or to `d7` to support the queenside attack.

Of course, kingside action is not at all out of the question for Black; the half-open e-file gives him some good options on that side of the board as well. In particular, Black's powerful Bishop on the long diagonal constantly threatens to slide into a very strong outpost on `d4`, and Black's Knights often land on the kingside anyway in the course of natural development.

```
[White "Kalju Vark"]
[Black "Mikhail Tal"]
[FEN "r1b1r1k1/pp1nq1bp/3p2p1/2pP1p2/1nB1PP2/P1N1BNP1/1P2QK1P/R6R b - - 0 1"]

1...fxe4! 2.Ng5 Nd3+! 3.Kg2 Nf6 4.Ba2 Bg4 5.Qd2 h6 6.h3

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, theory
---


title: Can white recover? (midgame)

text:
# Question
Title: Can white recover? (midgame)
If someone could put a picture of the layout in that'd be great, I've looked (clicked edit) on posts with them and I cannot work out the format, also this is a setup, I didn't write down how I got there.

This is a game I was playing against my "Train board" on a train so not my finest work but I ended up in this situation and in the end "resigned" (turned it off), and what I've tried from here

```
[FEN "r4rk1/pp3ppp/2n1p3/q2p1b2/1b1PnB2/1QN2NPP/PP2PPB1/2R2RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1. g4 (1. Nxe4 dxe4 2. Ne5 Nxd4 {I've noted this was a good move for black, that I missed} 3. Qc4 (3. Qe3 Qd5 4. Qc3 Bxc3) Qd5 4. Qxb4 {play suspected trap for interest} (4. Qxd5 exd5 5. Rc7) Nxe2+) Bg6 2. Qa4 Nxc3 3. bxc3 {Stopped playing, loose queen} 0-1

```

Now I think (I wrote) that I opened very well and I seemed fairly happy with the moves before these, the move before this starts though I went from waiting room to train and I'm easily distracted by the scenery. So please no "idiot, who does that!" stuff.

I really think black has the stronger position by far, but the midgame can very easily turn.

# Answer
> 2 votes
> Can white recover?

**White is just fine.** Sure, Black stands slightly better due to his **better coordinated** minor pieces, but the position is roughly equal.

> If someone could put a picture of the layout in that'd be great, I've looked (clicked edit) on posts with them and I cannot work out the format, also this is a setup, I didn't write down how I got there.

This thread covers the topic pretty good in my opinion.

> I really think black has the stronger position by far, but the midgame can very easily turn.

I believe that opening went something like this:

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Bf4 Bf5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.g3 e6 8.Qb3 Bb4 9.Bg2 O-O 10.O-O Qa5 11.Rac1 Ne4 12.Rfd1!?

```

Here, White's last move fortifies the `d4` pawn, leaving `e2` pawn free which might be useful in some lines.

Sure, Black has aggressively posted minor pieces, but White **finished development** and is now ready to **push them back.** This means that Black will have to make exchanges which will reduce his pressure, or will have to fall back giving the initiative to White.

Therefore, I believe that the resulting position after `Rfd1!?` is unclear, with chances for both sides.

Since we look at this from White's perspective, it would be good if Black exchanged on `c3` and if White could then get Black's lightsquared bishop for `f3` knight. With a fortified `d4` pawn he could launch `e4` in appropriate moment in order to open his position for his bishops. In such position `Nc6` would be badly posted since `d4` pawn is fortified with `c3` pawn.

Just for an example, I provide a sample line:

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Bf4 Bf5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.g3 e6 8.Qb3 Bb4 9.Bg2 O-O 10.O-O Qa5 11.Rac1 Ne4 12.Rfd1!? Rac8!? 13.Nh4 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Ba3 15.Ra1 Bg6 16.Nxg6 hxg6 17.e4+/=

```

Best regards.

---
Tags: analysis, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: Has Anand missed that he is better? Anand vs Andreikin round 12 Candidates tournament
I am looking at the *Anand vs Andreikin* round 12 Candidates tournament and I see that it ended in a draw and that based on engine evaluation Anand is much better (+ 2.8 is kind of huge). I also see that it is really a hard position and to be able to get advantage it requires you to sacrifice a rook basically for nothing (you will not get anything back in next moves). Anand proceeded with repetition thus drawing the game.

I know that the question is highly speculative and no one knows the answer except of Anand. But has he not seen that he is better, may be he was low on time, or something else? (I definitely has not seen it, and even from my first 3 minutes of analysis it looks like he is worse, but this is why I am not a GM :-) ).

A more appropriate question will be about normal analysis of the position.

Here is the mentioned game:

```
[White "Anand"]
[Black "Andreikin"]
[Event "Candidates tournament 2014 ( round 12 )"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 e6 8.Ne5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 Nd7 11.f4 Bb4+ 12.c3 Be7 13.Bd2 Ngf6 14.O-O-O O-O 15.Qf3 Qc7 16.c4 a5 17.Kb1 Rad8 18.Bc1 a4 19.Rhe1 a3 20.b3 Bb4 21.Re3 c5 22.d5 exd5 23.cxd5 Nb6 24.Red3 Qc8 25.d6 Rfe8 26.Nh5 Re6 27.Nxf6 Rxf6 28.d7 Qc7 29.Qg4 c4 30.Rg3 g6 31.h5 cxb3 32.Rxb3 Na4 33.hxg6 fxg6 34.Rxb4 Nc3+ 35.Kc2 b5 36.Kb3 Na4 37.Qf3 Nc5+ 38.Kc2 Na4+ 39.Kb3 Nc5+ 40.Kc2 Na4+ 41.Kb3 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
I watched the press conference. It starts at the 4 hr 13 minute mark in this video.

Some quotes from Anand-

> "I should play Kd2."
>
> "I suspect White is better"
>
> "but my head was spinning"
>
> "I decided not to tempt fate."
>
> "I was already very tired. The game had taken a lot of energy. I didn't see anything terribly clear. White still has to defend for another 4-5 moves..."

To summarize: Anand was quite tired and although he suspected his position to be better, he didn't see anything concrete for White. In the press conference he mentioned that he saw that Black's pieces would be well co-ordinated while White's would not be so harmoniously placed for the next few moves. Therefore, he decided not to take a risk and go for the draw.

So Anand didn't miss that he is better, but other factors influenced his decision to take the draw.
> 7 votes

# Answer
To Quote GM Jonathan Tisdall, "Jonathan Tisdall @GMjtis I think in the pre-computer age people would not be criticizing Anand's 'incredible' decision for a few days at least." And Jonathan Rowson, "@Jonathan\_Rowson It's funny, if you follow the main online computer line on 41.Rc4 it reaches R&B vR: Lots of risk and still just a draw!"

I watched the complete game and the video footage online, and frankly I was disappointed. But it WAS a very complicated game. Its easier for us fans, to sit at home in front of our engines which spits these emotionless-crazy lines with \> +3 advantage, but its a different matter on the board.

After move 40, Anand actually peeked at the Karjakin game, even though it was his turn to move. Probably he saw that Karjakin can only draw the game and soon after that agreed to repeat his position too. (Remember he is 40+ and the game was already 4hrs+!)

He did acknowledge that he had seen these lines, but his head was spinning and it was not worth the risk!

What Anand did was practical considering the tournament situation.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, anand, sacrifice
---


# Question
Title: What plan should black have followed in this game?
I played as black in the following game, and with the help of StockFish I've discovered a few mistakes, one of which was a very serious tactical blunder. However, I'm having trouble figuring out where I went wrong *strategically*.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2014.03.04"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish DD (50.0%)"]
[Black "Ralph"]
[Result "1-0"]
[StartPly "16"]
[StartFlipped "1"]

1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 O-O 7.e3 Nbd7 8.Bd3
c5 9.Bb2 dxc4 10.Bxc4 Nb6 11.Be2 Nbd7 12.c4 a6 13.a4 Ne4 14.O-O b6 15.Qc2
Ndf6 16.Ne5 Bb7 17.Rfd1 Qc7 18.Bd3 Nd6 19.a5 cxd4 20.axb6 Qc5 21.Bxd4 Qc8
22.c5 Nd7 23.Bxh7+ Kh8 24.cxd6 Qxc2 25.Bxc2 Nxe5 26.Bxe5 f6 27.Bg3 Kg8 28.
Bb3 a5 29.d7 Ra6 30.Bc7 1-0

```

Here are some of the specific mistakes that I've spotted, which you might like to add to or elaborate on.

* From what I can tell, `12...a6` was a mistake because of `13.a4`, leaving me with a weak b pawn and a cramped Q-side.
* StockFish pointed out that `15...Ndf6` was a mistake. I'm guessing this is because it allows white to place a knight on e5?
* StockFish showed me that `19...cxd4` was a massive blunder resulting in the loss of two pawns and two passed pawns for white.

My original plan, rudimentary as it was, was to aim Queen and bishop at white's K-side down the a8-h1 diagonal, then double my rooks on the semi-open D-file, and finally launch an attack on the king using my knights. As it turned out, I failed to coordinate my pieces properly and was unable to even begin implementing this plan due to white's threats. I just wonder:

1. Was this the correct plan to begin with, and if so, how could I have implemented it better?
2. If not, what would a good plan have looked like?
3. Based on my play in this game, do you feel I need to "go back to school" to learn anything, and if so, what specifically?

Your advice is very much appreciated!

# Answer
Plans are not usually so long range and specific. Your opponent will be trying to do things that you cannot ignore. Plans are often a collection of piece improvement ideas that work together to control important squares and put pressure on your opponents position.

Part of your plan could be developing your light square bishop on b7. This looks to help control the central light squares, and might long term put pressure on white's kingside.

If you want to put your bishop on b7, then b7-b6 is a priority. a7-a6 does not go with this idea, as you point out.

White's bishop on c4 does not have a lot to do and does not need to be driven off with 10...Nb6. This also gets in the way of developing your bishop to b7.

On move 10, white's bishop on b2 is not very good. You should look to controlling the d5-square to prevent white d4-d5. You should support your pawn on c5. It brings pressure on white's center, and if white takes d4xc5 his pawn structure will be weakened. Qc7, Rfd8, Rac8 look like good places for the heavy pieces to help control the central squares, and the possibility of white ending up with weak pawns on the c or d files. Qc7 and Nd7 help control e5, and might provide a chance for an e6-e5 break.

A knight posted on e4 goes well with a bishop on b7.

This plan on move 10 would need to be continually adjusted based on what white does.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The quick, short, and practical answer about the plan in that position would be in this specific order:

1) Continue fighting for control of the center (which seems you did somehow unconsciously probably due to some memorization of the opening moves) by excerpting pressure on it with your with pieces (moves like b6, Bb7, Rc8)

This point 1 aligns with one of the important goals of the opening and of chess strategy in general: aim to control the center because controlling the center you can take control of other parts of the board, and more easily move your pieces to where the ensuing battle will happen.

2) Aim to end up with the better part of a pawn center or avoid and inferior pawn center; exchange in the center only if it is you that benefits.

This point 2 aligns with one of the major factors that influence planning in the middle game. The pawn center (or lack of it) determines the character of the position and consequent actions for both sides.

3) After the center has settled off, you can set your sight on a longer term course of action, taking into account these elements of the position:

* likelihood of semi open c file for your rooks
* likelihood of having a pawn on d5 that controls d4 plus your bishop on b7
* likelihood of using e4 as an outpost for your knight and attack pawn on c3

Obviously white is not just sitting there doing nothing; white will try to aim its queen, bishops and night to your king but should do so preferably after the center has been settled; you should be prepared for that and should try to exchange off those pieces attacking your king; for example, I think exchanging queens off the board would benefit black's intentions and you reduce the potential risk that your king could face in the near future.

So that addressees your points 1, 2 in your question.

Regarding your point

> "do I need to "go back to school" to learn anything"

, obviously there's a lot you need to learn but let me point out high level things that you want to consider addressing **about the middle game** and likely in the order I list them:

1) Tactical elements - usually these are "the hows" of a game; things like threats, forcing moves, forks, skewers, double attacks, pins, discovered attack, discovered check, deflections, decoy, attraction, etc.

2) Typical mate patterns and combinations.

3) Strategy elements - typically these are "the whats" in a game; things like good and bad pawn structures, the bishop pair, bad vs good bishop, good bishop vs bad knight and viceversa, isolated pawns, weeks pawns, doubled-pawns, initiative, space, open columns/diagonals, etc. In this area I liked this book a lot "How to Reassess Your Chess" Fourth edition by Jeremy Silman.

One final thing to suggest would be having a *"chess thought process"* for a more disciplined playing; it's not an easy thing to do initially but once you have one it helps a lot deciding what to move and avoid blunders; here is a relatively simple one you may want to start with:

(1) Threats (for both sides)

1.1) mate threat, stop it if there's one

1.2) checks, captures, and other threats, stop it if dangerous or harmful

1.3) foresee upcoming threats

(2) Tactics (for both sides)

2.1) if there's tactical elements present try to exploit them

(3) Assessment and planning (for both sides)

3.1) identify the imbalances/differences in the position, strengths and weaknesses, the goods and bads, and targets if any

3.2) elaborate a course of action (a plan) based on those differences

3.3) carry out your plan, typically points (1 - threats) and (2 - tactics) have been taken care of at this point
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy
---


# Question
Title: FIDE tournament rules: Does a player HAVE to record the opponent's move before making a move?
Suppose I play **1. e4** and my opponent plays **1..e5**. Do FIDE tournament rules require me to write **1...e5** on my scoresheet before I play the next move **2. Nf3?**

# Answer
No, you don't have to. In rule 8.1 of the Laws of Chess, it says:

> A player may reply to his opponent’s move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another.

So your previous move must have been recorded by the time you make the next. You must have recorded at least *1.e4* before you can play *2.Nf3*.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


# Question
Title: Could Karjakin have grabbed on g5 at move 56 against Anand in the Candidates 2014?
After 55...Rb2, we got the following position in Karjakin - Anand (Candidates 2014, round 13). Well, how about Nxg5, does it work?

```
[White "Karjakin"]
[Black "Anand"]
[FEN "8/8/6k1/4p1p1/4P1Pp/5P1N/1r1BK3/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nxg5 Rxd2+ 2.Kxd2 Kxg5 3.Ke3 h3 4.Kf2 Kf4 5.Kg1 Kg5 6.Kh1

```

Seems better (winning?) for white. Am I missing something?

# Answer
3...h3 is wrong. The key is 3...Kf6!

```
[FEN "8/8/5k2/4p3/4P1Pp/4KP2/8/8 w - - 2 4"]

```

Note that:

* White's king has to stay in the h-pawn's square, so it can't try to walk around the pawns.
* Once white's king gets to h3, black should always be able to answer ...Kg5. If he does, then white's king can only retreat, unless he tries f4 there:

```
[FEN "8/8/8/4p1k1/4P1Pp/5P1K/8/8 w - - 8 7"]

1.f4 exf4

```

If anyone is better off here, it's black, but it's still a draw.

* Or white can play 4.f4 immediately.

```
[FEN "8/8/5k2/4p3/4P1Pp/4KP2/8/8 w - - 2 4"]

4.f4 h3! 5.fxe5+ {What else?} Kxe5 6.Kf3 h2 7.Kg2 h1=Q+ 8.Kxh1 Kxe4 =

```

So the pawn endgame is a draw.
> 5 votes

# Answer
The pawn endgame is a draw. Black doesn't play `h3` until white plays `f4`, for instance

```
[White "Karjakin"]
[Black "Anand"]
[FEN "8/8/8/4p1k1/4P1Pp/5P2/3K4/8 w - - 0 1"]

3.Ke3 Kh6 4. f4 h3! 5. Kf3 exf4

```

If white doesn't play `f4`, then black only needs to be ready to answer `Kh3` with `Kg5`, but that is never going to be a problem.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, anand, karjakin
---


title: Rate the difficulty of this computer?

text:
# Question
Title: Rate the difficulty of this computer?
I've just been playing for fun online a little bit, and was wondering how hard the computer I've been playing against is. NOTE: This was made for a javascript competition, and doesn't include castling or en passant capture.

http://js1k.com/2010-first/demo/699

# Answer
As a programmer, trying to write a chess engine by Javascript which runs on client's browser is very interesting. It has only 1018 bytes!

The engine doesn't obey the rules thoroughly (however we can ignore at this time). On the other hand it plays immediately and doesn't consume time to find better moves. It just trying to avoid obvious and basic blunders and probably it can find mating moves.

I suspect it uses any popular approach such as min-max search trees to evaluate moves. It's a very simple program and most of newbies can defeat it easily.

So, if you're not a programmer and following for a chess engine, don't count it as a real chess program.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It does have the capability to spot basic mating threats as far as I saw. No opening theory book is supported, thus its opening play is terrible. It has a bad evaluation function, as it was not able to spot simple threats and does not recognize what is weak or strong move. Defending capabilities are low. I won fast so I can not comment on its endgame or attacking skill. In short, it plays as someone who just learned the game rules ( except *en passant* and castling, of course ).

Hopefully this helps.

Best regards.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I didn't play a full game with it (mainly because of having to scroll to see the full board), but I'm not so impressed. Also, there is a bug in it which prevents long castle.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, rating
---


# Question
Title: Is there a good method to come up with a plan during a game?
I have started to play chess more seriously recently by playing some tournaments. During all my tournament games, I faced serious problems coming up with plans during the middle game. Is there a methodical way of thinking to come up with a plan by looking to a given position? Is there a good book that I can read to improve this skill? My current elo is +1600 and I have played around 20 standard time control games.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Its a great question! When teaching chess, I get on my students about always having a plan. However, many of my beginning students have the impression that making a plan means "I'm going to use a combination of Queen and Knight to Checkmate my opponent's King on the 27th move." Of course, this is unrealistic.

Chess is a constantly changing landscape and two or three moves can completely turn a winning position into a losing position. Therefore, plans have to be flexible. That's where it gets tricky. I tend to create flexible plans in which I play elastic moves. Planning really comes into play during the middle game.

Once the opening is complete and you have your pieces on ideal squares, you get down to the middle game. At the start of the middle game, I go through a checklist included pawn structure, position of my opponent's King in relation to his or her defending pieces, material balance, etc.

If I'm down material, I create a plan that evens the material balance which repositioning my pieces on good squares. I try to keep it simple and flexible. I think a lot of players have narror plans and when something goes wrong, they find their pieces on squares that do them no good. I try to play elastic moves that prepare for more than one response from my opponent.

My plans change as the game changes. However, I try to play positions that allow me to maintain my original plan while still dealing with the potential curve-balls some times thrown by my opponent.

It's a tough call because you want to have a plan that goes forward but often you have to rethink your plan and alter it to fit the current position. I would say that your plan has to take into consideration imbalances but that is often the cause of a change in plans. A master can see many more moves ahead than I can so it is easier for them to create a plan that they can stick to. Moreover, Andrew Martin has mentioned on numerous occasions the need for playing flexible moves.

# Answer
> 6 votes
> is there a methodical way of thinking to come out with a plan, by looking to a given position? Or a good book that I can read to improve this skill?

Yes there is a methodical way of thinking to come up with a plan; basically the plan has to come out of what Jeremy Silman calls the imbalances of the position. The method would be by doing a `positional assessment` of the imbalances present in the position.

I liked Silman's book a lot "How to Reassess Your Chess" Fourth edition by Jeremy Silman.

You could also look at this middle-game classic by Alexander Kotov "Play Like a Grandmaster"

You will read the books to learn about the planning skill, you will play chess games to improve that skill.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I think a counter-point to all of the advice so far needs to be raised.

Willy Hendriks argues in *Move First, Think Later* (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Move-First-Think-Later-Improving/dp/9056913980) that planning in chess is over-rated. He reckons you are better off simply looking for good moves instead.

What does this amount to? If I understand him correctly, this does not mean that you should play aimlessly, but that instead of following abstract "plans" or "strategies" (like looking for "imbalances", or "attack in the center when your opponent attack on the flank", or "anticipate the critical moment of the game"), you should focus on finding good moves and putting your pieces on good squares and preventing your opponent from doing the same.

The problem with plans are that they are either so abstract to be useless, or so inflexible as to get you into trouble if you should try to follow them to the letter. Let's take an example from one of the other comments on this page:

Panzer writes: "If I'm down material, I create a plan that evens the material balance which repositioning my pieces on good squares. I try to keep it simple and flexible... I try to play elastic moves that prepare for more than one response from my opponent."

This sounds awesome when you read it, but in reality it does not say much. It really could be summarized as: find the best move for the position.

# Answer
> 3 votes
A chess game is usually said to be in three phases: opening, middlegame and endgame. However there are not any fixed borderlines between these phases so your phrase about "plan in the middlegame" is **very** vague.

There are many possible openings you may choose as white or black which will affect the positions which may arise in the middlegame. When you say you have problems finding a plan in the middlegame, this may mean you have not chosen the right positions to play.

It is easier to understand when you think planning as merely **pattern recognition**. As Philidor once said, "pawns are the soul of chess" and pawn structures usually determine the characteristics of positions. As an example, isolated d-pawn is a very common structure which you can find in the opening lines of Caro-Kann Panov Attack, many variations of Queen's Gambit (Tarrasch is one of them). Some of those are completely different openings but in a middlegame position with a similar structure the patterns are similar thereby common plans are also similar. White usually plays for a kingside attack given the fact that the isolated d-pawn (d4-pawn in this example) makes e5-square available. Black, in turn, hopes for a blockade on d5-square and tries to eliminate White's attack by exchanging pieces with the hope that every piece exchanged makes the isolated pawn more and more exposed.

The more patterns you can recognize, the easier you can come up with plans. To recognize patterns you have to learn from the masters. Start with classic games. However old they look they will make you understand both how the chess theory improved and how ideas were formed.

This is not a confirmed information but I have heard once that Vladimir Kramnik analyzed lots of classic games as part of his preparation against Garry Kasparov. You see, even grandmasters find some value in relatively old looking games.

As for the book, I can recommend **Chess Fundamentals** by **Jose Raul Capablanca**. This is a fantastic book where the third world champion explains his moves and positions with astonishing simplicity.

---
Tags: strategy, positional-play, middlegame
---


title: Need help to solve a puzzle

text:
# Question
Title: Need help to solve a puzzle
I have been trying to solve the below chess puzzle for more than 2 days. Can someone help me to solve it?

**White to play and mate in two moves**

```
[FEN "n1N1Kn/2p/P1k/2p1Q/P/2P/7B/6Nq w - - 0 1"]

```

I have tried to do it, but my tries take more than two moves.

```
[FEN "n1N1Kn/2p/P1k/2p1Q/P/2P/7B/6Nq w - - 0 1"]

1. c4 Qf3 2.  Nxf3 Nb6 3. Ne7#

```

# Answer
Maybe 1. Qe2 and zugzwang:

1... Nb6 2. Ne7#

1... Kd5 2. Ne7#

1... Qd5 2. Qb5#

1... c4 2. Qc4#

1...Qxh2 2. Qe4#
> 9 votes

---
Tags: problems
---


# Question
Title: Instructive games with a white h-pawn push in the Smith-Morra gambit?
I like to play the Smith-Morra gambit. Recently, a friend showed me a game where he (as white) successfully played a h-pawn push in the Smith-Morra gambit, which both damaged black's kingside while opening up the file for the rook. He then followed up with a massive attack along the h-file, and easily won.

This could have been a once-off against an unskilled opponent, so I'd like to see how viable this is in other situations.

*Question*: What are some instructive games with a white h-pawn push in the Smith-Morra gambit?

# Answer
> 7 votes
I checked my main games database and my book on the Smith-Morra, "The Modern Morra Gambit" by FM Hannes Langrock. I could find no examples of high-level players successfully employing this strategy to launch a kingside attack. The Smith-Morra focuses very strongly on quick central control and development, so it makes good sense to me that white's play will almost always be focused on the centre rather than along the h-file.

The one system within the Smith-Morra where I found a couple of examples of white successfully playing h4-h5 was in the Nge7-system. In this system, black plays Nge7 and Ng6, with the aim of using the knight to add extra control over the e5-square. In these cases, h4-h5 was usually played not with the aim of a kingside attack, but with a view to chase away the strongly placed black knight and regain control over e5. I did find one interesting example in the aforementioned book of white using this to instigate an attack, though it revolved more around using the e5-pawn as a central wedge rather than an attack on the h-file. It was given as D.Cantell Martinez - O.Martinez Rodriguez, Asturias 2001, though I don't know how much value to attribute to it as couldn't find it in my main database nor on chessgames.com, and I couldn't find the players for sure on the Fide ratings website (I found two possible O.Martinez Rodriguez, rated about 1800 and 1900). In any case, it was given in the book as:

```
  [FEN ""]
  [White "Martinez"]
  [Black "Rodriguez"]

  1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bc4 Bc5 7.O-O a6 8.Bf4 b5 9.Bb3 Nge7 10.e5 Ng6 11.Bg3 O-O 12.h4 Qc7 13.Re1 Rd8 14.h5 Nf8 15.Ne4 Be7 16. Nf6+ Kh8 17. Ng5 g6 18.Nxf7+ Kg7 19.Qf3 Bb7 20.h6+ 1-0

```

Overall, it seems to be a very uncommon theme in this opening.

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, gambits, smith-morra-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Is this endgame a draw (hacked - TestViking)?
In my recent online blitz video, I got the following endgame with the black pieces. With white to move, the game went as follows

```
[White "hacked"]
[Black "TestViking"]
[FEN "8/3k2p1/1p1P1pP1/p1p5/P1P1PK2/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.e5 Ke6 2.exf6 Kxf6 3.d7 Ke7 1/2-1/2

```

...white offered draw and I agreed. Was the position a draw or did one of the sides have a win or winning chances?

# Answer
Yes, it was drawn all along. 1...Ke6! was the only move for black to draw since he cannot allow white to force ...gxf6, nor allow the white king up to support the d-pawn. After 4.Ke5 Kxd7 5.Kd5 there's no way for either side to make progress as the kings will just be shuffled between d5/e5 and d7/e7. There is one practical chance/trap that might be worth trying before agreeing to a draw; black can play 5...Kc7 and see if white goes for 6.Ke6, in which case black wins with 6...b5!, forcing the creation of a passed pawn and queening first. As long as white spots this and plays 6.Ke5 instead there's nothing more to do, though.

Edit: I realized black cannot play Ke7 at the end as it loses to Kc6. However, Kc7 still draws as before due to white being unable to play Ke6.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: endgame, pawns, draw, kings
---


title: Is this line of vienna attack a draw?

text:
# Question
Title: Is this line of vienna attack a draw?
Most chess players will recognize this position from the so called immortal draw:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Bc5 3. Na4 Bxf2 4. Kxf2 Qh4 5. Ke3 Qf4 6. Kd3 d5 7. Kc3 Qxe4 8. Kb3 Na6 9. a3 Qxa4 10. Kxa4 Nc5 11. Kb4 a5 12. Kxc5 Ne7 13. Bb5 Kd8 14. Bc6 b6 15. Kb5 Nxc6 16. Kxc6 Bb7 17. Kb5 Ba6

```

I am trying to understand if after Bxf7+ it is a force draw (with best play), I checked this opening site and after Bxf2 there is almost 88% of draw in this position.

# Answer
> 4 votes
With best play, the position is unclear. If White plays **7. Kc3**, then after **7...d4+!**, Black gets a slight advantage. However, White can play **7. Qe1!** and then the position is unclear.

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

    1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Bc5 3. Na4 Bxf2+ 4. Kxf2 Qh4+ 5. Ke3 Qf4+ 6. Kd3 d5
    7. Kc3 (7. Qe1 $1 Nf6 8. c3 Bd7 9. Kc2 (9. Nc5 Bb5+ 10. Kc2 Qxf1)
    9... Bxa4+ 10. b3 Qxe4+ 11. Qxe4 Nxe4 12. bxa4 Nf2 13. Ba3 Nxh1 14. Nh3 f6
    15. Bd3 Ng3 16. hxg3 Nc6)
    7... d4+ $1 8. Kb3 Qf6 9. Nf3 (9. a3 Qc6 10. Ka2 Qxa4) 9... Bd7 10. a3 Na6
    11. Ka2 Bxa4 12. Bc4 Bd7 13. Rf1 Qe7 14. d3 f6

```

---
Tags: opening, draw
---


# Question
Title: I played 2.f3 by accident! How do I save my position?
So in a correspondence chess game, the opening is the standard 1.e4 e5. I meant to play 2.Nf3 as always, but I completely misclicked and didn't realize until too late that I played f3 instead. It's such a massive blunder in the opening that I almost feel like resigning here. Is there a way for me to save my position?

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.f3

```

# Answer
You are correct that 2.f3 is a terrible idea. The f2, e3 and g3 squares become weak. But it isn't bad enough to resign the game. After all, the game has just begun and the material is still equal. There are a few ideas here for white, for example after

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.f3 Bc5 3.f4!? exf4 4.Nf3

```

You seem to get some sort of delayed King's gambit that perhaps isn't that horrible. While after

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.f3 Nf6 3.d4!? exd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Qe3

```

You can fight for the dark squares and perhaps castle queenside.
> 8 votes

# Answer
With `3. f4`, you are playing the Latvian Gambit with colors reversed!

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. f3 Nf6 3. f4

```
> 8 votes

# Answer
The most important thing to do with any blunder is to stay calm. Evaluate the position objectively: pretend you've just been handed a chess board and told to finish the game.

In this position, you've got a well-defended e-pawn and a weakened kingside, especially `e3`, `f2`, and `g3`. Your King Knight's usual best spot is unavailable. However, the position is certainly not lost: there are many perfectly good opening lines that feature an early `f3` from White. Taking some inspiration from them, you I might be inclined to go for a setup with `Ne2`, `d4 (exd4 Nxd4)`, and `Nc3` to establish a strong center and dominance over the light squares. An example line might be:

```
1.e4 e5
2.f3 Nf6
3.Ne2 Nc6
4.d4 exd4
5.Nxd4 d6
6.Nc3

```

Resulting in a position that looks more like a line from a Knights' game than one with `2.f3`.

```
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp2ppp/2np1n2/8/3NP3/2N2P2/PPP3PP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

---

I can't overstate enough, though, that the most important thing is to just evaluate the position objectively and try to set your ego aside when it comes to past moves, especially mistakes.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, blunder
---


# Question
Title: Chess GUI for windows that shows two boards?
Is there a Chess GUI for Windows that shows both the board from white's perspective and black's perspective side by side, without the need for flipping?

# Answer
> 2 votes
The closest I've gotten to something like this is having separate accounts on whatever chess server you're using.

If you're using, say, FICS, you have two instances of your favorite client running, the first client is your main one and the second one you just join to the game through another account as a "watcher".

This requires a bit of manual labor, though. A more automated way is done through exploiting the macro functionality of most modern clients. You could, say, run the second client in the background at all times, and have the first client send an invite to the second to join the game, and the second client set to automatically accept invites coming from the first account.

At the very least, I think Winboard and BabasChess are capable of this. Others almost certainly are.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I doubt that there is such a chess program. You could probably accomplish this by opening the same game on two separate boards and flip one of them. The downside would be that you would have to browse in the two boards separately. So to move a move forward, you would have to click twice, once on each board. The upside would be that you can analyze different positions from the same game in parallel. Perhaps there is a setting to flip the board automatically according to who's turn it is?

---
Tags: software, windows
---


# Question
Title: What is considered a distraction to an opponent?
My questions concern section 12.6 of the FIDE rules handbook (http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article) which states that it is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any way.

Imagine that Player A and Player B play each other and Player B complains to the arbiter that some action of Player A is a distraction. My question is about when the complaint is reasonable. My view is that in some situations, Player A's action is legitimate and for others, the arbiter may ask Player A to oblige. For the situations below, is Player A's action legitimate or not?

2.1 Player A leaves the table (not the hall) - it is Player A's turn to move.
2.2 Player A stands behind Player B's chair on Player A's turn.
2.3 Player A stands behind Player B on Player B's turn.
2.4 Player A plays without sitting down - it is player A's turn.
2.5 Player A is seated and fidgets continously.
2.6 Player A stares continually/makes faces at Player B.
2.7 Player A does not write down the moves.
2.8 Player A's mobile phone is switched off but its alarm rings. Will Player A be forfeited?

# Answer
Quite a few of these are already covered elsewhere in the rules. In the rest it would be up to the arbiter to use his judgement. I will quote the rules where relevant and state what I would have done as an arbiter.

2.1 Player A leaves the table (not the hall) - it is Player A's turn to move.

Explicitly covered by article 12.2:

> 12.2 Players are not allowed to leave the ‘playing venue’ without permission from the arbiter. The playing venue is defined as the playing area, rest rooms, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter.
>
> The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter.

So player A is free to leave the table, but not the playing area.

2.2 Player A stands behind Player B's chair on Player A's turn.

This type of behaviour is not explicitly covered outside of article 12.6, but unless player A was doing something unreasonably distracting like leaning over player B, I don't see a big problem with this, however if player B does make a complaint about being distracted by it I may ask Player A not to do so. It's at the arbiter's discretion.

2.3 Player A stands behind Player B on Player B's turn.

2.4 Player A plays without sitting down - it is player A's turn.

2.5 Player A is seated and fidgets continously.

These are all pretty similar and would be handled as for 2.2, it would be at the arbiter's discretion to decide what if any action to take about it.

2.6 Player A stares continually/makes faces at Player B.

This time the behaviour is clearly distracting and the arbiter should take action if the behaviour can be proven or was seen by the arbiter. If player B makes this complaint and I/other witnesses did not see player A doing anything wrong, I could not take any action directly, but would make sure to observe player A from then on to see if any such behavior takes place.

2.7 Player A does not write down the moves.

Explicitly covered by article 8.1:

> 8.1 In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibily as possible, in the algebraic notation (See Appendix C), on the scoresheet prescribed for the competition.
>
> It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2, or 9.3 or adjourning a game according to the Guidelines of Adjourned Games point 1.a.
>
> A player may reply to his opponent’s move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another.
>
> Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet. (See Appendix C.13)
>
> 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.

So both players are required to write down the moves anyway.

2.8 Player A's mobile phone is switched off but its alarm rings. Will Player A be forfeited?

Explicitly covered in article 12.3:

> 12.3 ... Without the permission of the arbiter a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off. If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. However, if the opponent cannot win the game by any series of legal moves, his score shall be a draw. ...

So yes, player A would be forfeited. The rules state only that the device needs to make any kind of sound for the player to be forfeited.
> 11 votes

# Answer
I'll answer; for items I can only offer observations about what seems to be acceptable in practice; for some I can only offer an opinion; and for some items I can give some backing in rules.

2.1. This happens all the time, also when it's Player B's turn to move. I've never heard anyone complain about this, and I wouldn't expect an arbiter to take any action.

2.2., 2.3. (Just an opinion.) As an arbiter, I'd consider this a reasonable complaint and I'd ask Player A to refrain from standing behind Player B.

2.4. As a followup to 2.1., I've seen this happen regularly. Also here, I haven't heard anyone complain and wouldn't expect an arbiter to take action.

2.5., 2.6. (Just an opinion.) I'm afraid these would come down to a judgement call of the arbiter after observing the situation. I would guess from "though luck" for the fidgeting to at least a warning for making faces (but then, would player A keep making faces when an arbiter is looking on?).

2.7. This would be a violation of Rule 8.1., requiring in each player to keep score, and should be dealt with accordingly.

2.8. This is explicitly dealt with under Rule 12.3. Player A forfeits the game. Funny enough, it deals with "mobile phones" or "electronic means of communication". Now what if the alarm on Player A's watch goes of? I would expect this to be dealt with in exactly the same way.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: rules, tournament, etiquette
---


# Question
Title: Which 20th century grandmster had the highest draw percentage in their career?
The title says it all. I am looking to learn and adopt a play style which does not necessarily win, but is typified as being incredibly difficult to actually win against, hence why I wish to know who had the most draws.

# Answer
World Champion Tigran Petrosian was known to be almost impossible to beat. He's your man. Study his games and legacy.

Per Wikipedia, he lost 1 out of 129 Olympiad games. Olympiads are top-notch tournaments and the score is over 20 years of play. He's not a flash in the pan.

In his 8 Euroteams competitions (held every three years from 1957 to 1983) he lost -0- out of 52 games. His team won the competition every time.

Then I started poking around in chessgames.com and I started looking at win/loss/draw ratios.

I made a list of all world champions since Botvinnik, including the weird ones where FIDE lost control.

The three players with the best win:loss ratio (in order): Kasparov (6.62), Fischer (4.87), and Petrosian (4.38). Kasparov dominates. (Only Karpov and Botvinnik are in the same class as these three.) I expected Kasparov and Fischer to be in this list. I was surprised that Petrosian was there, to be honest. But we see that he was very much able to score the win. He's about like Fischer in this regard.

The three players with the best win:draw ratio, in order: Fischer (1.7), Botvinnik (1.22), and Kasparov (1.02). Fischer dominates. No other players are in their class. I attribute this to an uncompromising aggressive desire to win. No half measures. Petrosian was not afflicted with this mentality. If it did not fit, he did not force it.

The three players with the best draw:loss ratio, in order: Petrosian (6.74), Kasparov (6.52), and Kramnik (6.25). Spassky and Karpov trail. No one else is close. This means that even if you had an advantage over one of these players, you'd have to work like mad to score the full point.

The three players with the best win+draw:loss ratio, in order: Kasparov (13.14), Petrosian (11.13), and Kramnik (9.73). Each is dominant over the next. Karpov and Spassky follow Kramnik closely. This reflects upon the difficulty of scoring the full point. An opponent would twice as likely to nick a full point off **Carlsen** than Petrosian. Ouch. (I think this is a statistical fluke due to Carslen's age...but it makes a good story.)

Finally, while I did not list it, Petrosian has one of the lower win:draw ratios. He was more than willing to accept a draw if he could not see how to secure the win. Other players with a similar win:draw ratio do not possess Petrosian's compensating win:loss ratio, however.

This rather defines his style, I think. You can see here a player who will defeat you if you aren't careful. He is patient and takes few chances. If you get ahead of him, he'll likely wear you down, into a draw. And if you err, he'll crush you.

edit - fun facts for the world champions...

In the 4 ratios I looked at (w:l, w:d, d:l, and w+d:l)...

* Kasparov is the only player who made the top-3 in all 4 ratios.
* Petrosian is the only player who made the top-3 of 3 ratios.
* Fischer and Kramnik both have two top-3 honors, but also each have a bottom-3 honor.
* Botvinnik is the only player with a single top-3 honor.
* Topolov and Carlsen each have three bottom-3 honors.
* Carlsen excepted, the three champions from the weird FIDE years (Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov, and Topalov) have the lowest W+D:L ratios. There is a marked just in score difference between them and the next lowest scored player (Smyslov). Find the clue.
> 13 votes

# Answer
My guess would be Ulf Andersson.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: history, draw, statistics, defense, grandmaster
---


# Question
Title: Why is the centre of the board considered important in chess?
Yes, we have all heard phrases like 'control the centre'. I would like to know the concrete reason why the centre of the board - in particular the 4 squares - e4, e5, d4, d5, are considered important in chess. What makes them different from any other square? What is the reason that these squares supposedly enjoy such a privileged status compared to other squares? Are they important only in the opening and not so important in the middle and end game? Why? Or is it all just a myth?

# Answer
> 17 votes
While (**e4**, **d4**, **e5**, **d5**) are generally regarded as the central squares, the same principle can sometimes be extended to the adjacent squares like (**c4**, **c5**, **d3**, **d6**, **e3**, **e6**, **f4**, **f5**). So we have a kind of central polygon -

Controlling the center is not an end in itself but a ***means*** to an end. The end results could be any combination of the following-

**1. Greater influence over the board.**

Normally, if you control the center, then your pieces have more control over the whole board in general. Thus, a knight centralized on **e5** generally controls more **important** squares than a knight passively placed, say, on **a4**.

Recommended Game:

Karpov vs Kasparov World Championship Match (1985), Game 16 \- Kasparov anchors a Black knight on **d3** which was famously described as the "octupus", controlling several key squares in White's position and greatly influencing the entire board. White's knights on the other hand are pushed to passive squares like **a4** and **b1**, exerting almost no control over the board.

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

  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nb5 d6 6. c4 Nf6 7. N1c3 a6
  8. Na3 d5 9. cxd5 exd5 10. exd5 Nb4 11. Be2 Bc5 12. O-O O-O 13. Bf3 Bf5
  14. Bg5 Re8 15. Qd2 b5 16. Rad1 Nd3 17. Nab1 h6 18. Bh4 b4 19. Na4 Bd6
  20. Bg3 Rc8 21. b3 g5 22. Bxd6 Qxd6 23. g3 Nd7 24. Bg2 Qf6 25. a3 a5
  26. axb4 axb4 27. Qa2 Bg6 28. d6 g4 29. Qd2 Kg7 30. f3 Qxd6 31. fxg4 Qd4
  32. Kh1 Nf6 33. Rf4 Ne4 34. Qxd3 Nf2 35. Rxf2 Bxd3 36. Rfd2 Qe3 37. Rxd3 Rc1
  38. Nb2 Qf2 39. Nd2 Rxd1 40. Nxd1 Re1 0-1

```

**2. Greater mobility of pieces.**

Often, if the central pawns are not advanced two squares, they can hinder the bishops from development. They provide less space for the pieces to move. If these pawns are advanced to the central squares, then the mobility of the pieces is greatly enhanced. Thus, **e2-e4** frees the bishop on **f1** and **d2-d4** does the same for the bishop on **c1**. Besides, these moves also make room for the queen on **d1** and later for the rooks to come into the game on the **d** or **e** files if they have been opened.

Recommended Game:

Paul Morphy vs James McConnell, 1849 \- Morphy follows basic opening principles; develops pieces towards the center, advances pawns to **e4** and **d4**, his bishops come to life and the Black queen is at the mercy of his centralized pieces.

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

  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qf6 3. Nc3 c6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 Qg6 6. Bd3 Qxg2 7. Rg1 Qh3
  8. Rg3 Qh5 9. Rg5 Qh3 10. Bf1 Qe6 11. Nxd4 Qe7 12. Ne4 h6 13. Nf5 Qe6 14. Nfd6 Bxd6
  15. Nxd6 Kd8 16. Bc4 Qe7 17. Nxf7 Kc7 18. Qd6 Qxd6 19. exd6 Kb6 20. Be3 c5
  21. Bxc5 Ka5 22. Rg3 b5 23. Ra3 1-0

```

**3. Restricted mobility of enemy pieces.**

Suppose white manages to place both pawns on **d4** and **e4**. This makes it difficult for the Black bishops to find good squares like **c5** or **f5**. They thus have to remain passive or try a fianchetto, which might not always be convenient. Also, the pawns on **d4** and **e4** restrict and also have the ability to attack the Black knights which might normally be developed on **c6** or **f6**. This constant potential to threaten the Black knights can make it difficult for Black to develop pieces comfortably.

Recommended Game:

Karpov vs Kasparov World Championship 1986, Game 5. \- Karpov demonstrates how pawns in the center can restrict a fianchettoed Bishop.

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

  1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bf4 Bg7 5. e3 c5 6. dxc5 Qa5 7. Rc1 Ne4 8. cxd5 Nxc3
  9. Qd2 Qxa2 10. bxc3 Qxd2 11. Kxd2 Nd7 12. Bb5 O-O 13. Bxd7 Bxd7 14. e4 f5 15. e5 e6
  16. c4 Rfc8 17. c6 bxc6 18. d6 c5 19. h4 h6 20. Nh3 a5 21. f3 a4 22. Rhe1 a3
  23. Nf2 a2 24. Nd3 Ra3 25. Ra1 g5 26. hxg5 hxg5 27. Bxg5 Kf7 28. Bf4 Rb8 29. Rec1 Bc6
  30. Rc3 Ra5 31. Rc2 Rba8 32. Nc1 1-0

```

**4. Pawns move closer to the enemy king.**

Generally, in an attack on the enemy king, it is important to have a few pawns near the enemy king to make it difficult for the opposing pieces to defend the position. If the Black king (for example) castles to the kingside, then it usually helps White to have a pawn on **e5**, because then Black cannot place a knight on **f6**, which is the most natural defensive position for the knight on the kingside.

Recommended Game:

Fischer vs Myagmarsuren, 1967 \- Bobby Fischer fixes a pawn on e5 to drive the Black knight from f6 and then proceeds to win with a kingside attack in instructive fashion.

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

  1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. g3 c5 5. Bg2 Nc6 6. Ngf3 Be7 7. O-O O-O
  8. e5 Nd7 9. Re1 b5 10. Nf1 b4 11. h4 a5 12. Bf4 a4 13. a3 bxa3 14. bxa3 Na5
  15. Ne3 Ba6 16. Bh3 d4 17. Nf1 Nb6 18. Ng5 Nd5 19. Bd2 Bxg5 20. Bxg5 Qd7
  21. Qh5 Rfc8 22. Nd2 Nc3 23. Bf6 Qe8 24. Ne4 g6 25. Qg5 Nxe4 26. Rxe4 c4
  27. h5 cxd3 28. Rh4 Ra7 29. Bg2 dxc2 30. Qh6 Qf8 31. Qxh7 1-0

```

**5. A favorable exchange of pawns in the center leaving the enemy camp with weaknesses.**

Normally, when pawns are placed in the center, the opponent has to challenge them at some point in the future. This can often lead to favorable pawn exchanges and may lead to isolated pawns or backward pawns in the enemy camp, which can be vulnerable in some positions.

Recommended Game:

Rubinstein vs Salwe, 1908 \- Here, Rubinstein creates a backward pawn on c6 and then masterfully exploits it.

```
   [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
   [White "Rubinstein, Akiba"]
   [Black "Salwe, Georg"]

   1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. g3 Nc6 7. Bg2 cxd4
   8. Nxd4 Qb6 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. O-O Be7 11. Na4 Qb5 12. Be3 O-O 13. Rc1 Bg4
   14. f3 Be6 15. Bc5 Rfe8 16. Rf2 Nd7 17. Bxe7 Rxe7 18. Qd4 Ree8 19. Bf1 Rec8
   20. e3 Qb7 21. Nc5 Nxc5 22. Rxc5 Rc7 23. Rfc2 Qb6 24. b4 a6 25. Ra5 Rb8
   26. a3 Ra7 27. Rxc6 Qxc6 28. Qxa7 Ra8 29. Qc5 Qb7 30. Kf2 h5 31. Be2 g6
   32. Qd6 Qc8 33. Rc5 Qb7 34. h4 a5 35. Rc7 Qb8 36. b5 a4 37. b6 Ra5 38. b7 1-0

```

As I mentioned, these are the end results that a side tries to achieve by controlling the center. If the end result is already achieved, or if it can be obtained in a better way, then there is no need to control the center.

# Answer
> 5 votes
In addition to things already said, notice that pieces have more moves if they're in the center of the board. E.g., a knight on one of the squares in the 4x4 space in the center has 8 moves; as the knight moves towards the edge, he has fewer moves that he can make. It is the same with the other pieces.

Books with precise speech will say that what's important is to *control* the center, not necessarily be *in* the center -- an important difference. Just having pawns in the center, for instance, would not get you any advantage. They need to be controlling one or more squares that pieces can use.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It is certainly not a myth! As pointed out control of the centre squares either by direct occupation with pieces or pawns or indirectly via major and minor pieces gives more control over the chess board. Pawns and pieces in the centre of the board affect the most squares compared to being on the outer flank squares and those on the board edge squares exert the least control of the board.

If you don't control these centre squares and let your opponent control them, they will have an easier game than if they have to fight for their control (so don't concede the centre without some other form of good compensation or you will regret it against any good player whose pieces and pawns in the centre will in effect be stronger!).

Some games are classed as open/semi-open or closed. Central openings often give rise to open or semi open games where centre files may become fully open or semi-open (ie with only one pawn on the file or no pawns). In open games pieces can be used more to control the centre. In closed games the pawns are supported and make it harder for the pieces to find good squares.

Some openings are designed to take central control. In the aggressive Sicilian defence black tries to exchange his c pawn for a centre pawn of white and try and control the centre that way. The Scandinavian opening immediately challenges the centre.

This central control concept does hold true more in the opening and midgame than the end game. In the endgame with only Kings and pawns left, other factors are more important (eg pawn structure, numbers and king position).

Still like many principals in chess there is more to chess than controlling the centre, but if you can control the centre you will have an advantage! This though does not mean you should neglect the flank/outer squares. If you let your opponent attack at will on the flanks with pieces and/or pawns you will be at a disadvantage too. So you need to be alert ("on the ball") in chess over the whole board and if you do concede the centre then beware!

---
Tags: strategy
---


title: 1k gamesanalysis (PGN)

text:
# Question
Title: 1k gamesanalysis (PGN)
I've been playing chess on-line for about 7 years now. I've downloaded my past games since 2011, its about 1k chess games. The download is in PGN format. Now I want to do an analyses on the data.

Is there a way to analyze all these games on-line or off-line, payed of free?

I'm interested in: The repeated mistakes to learn from, Personalized tips/hints, Statistics, learning curve (move rating, statistics).

Thanks for the info.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I am sure there's a starving master (redundant, I know) who would analyze your games for money. The Chess Life magazine used to have (still has?) classified where these services were offered. This is surely the most personalized way.

Many free chess engines will analyze your games. They play at the 3200+ (USCF) now so they should be somewhat better than what you can do in most cases. I use Stockfish and SCID but I have to say I find SCID to be clunky.

You may find a two-pronged approach better. Get master analysis. While that's in progress, chew through the games using an engine.

---
Tags: analysis, pgn, database
---


# Question
Title: Did Anand have a forced win at any point in Game 9 of the 2013 Anand-Carlsen world champhionship match?
For much of today's Anand-Carlsen game, white seemed to have a powerful mating attack. But from the analyses I've seen, there was never a point where it was clear that black would not be able to defend against best play. Was there any point in the game at which, with best play on white's part, all lines lead to a win?

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "WCh 2013"]
[Site "Chennai IND"]
[Date "2013.11.21"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E25"]
[WhiteElo "2775"]
[BlackElo "2870"]
[PlyCount "56"]
[EventDate "2013.11.09"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 d5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7. cxd5 exd5 8.
e3 c4 9. Ne2 Nc6 10. g4 O-O 11. Bg2 Na5 12. O-O Nb3 13. Ra2 b5 14. Ng3 a5 15.
g5 Ne8 16. e4 Nxc1 17. Qxc1 Ra6 18. e5 Nc7 19. f4 b4 20. axb4 axb4 21. Rxa6
Nxa6 22. f5 b3 23. Qf4 Nc7 24. f6 g6 25. Qh4 Ne8 26. Qh6 b2 27. Rf4 b1=Q+ 28.
Nf1 Qe1 0-1

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
The game was ambiguous until move 28, there is no clear way to win but as you mentioned white has the attacking form.

Let see the game from move `18.e5`

```
2bqnrk1/5ppp/r7/pp1p2P1/2pPP3/P1P2PN1/R5BP/2Q2RK1 w - - 1 18

```

White is attacking on king's side as Kasparov mentioned he could play `18.Rb2` to avoid black to make a passed pawn and keep pressure in both king and queen sides. But white decided to complicate the game.

Another move which leads many people criticize Anand was move `20.axb4`

```
2bq1rk1/2n2ppp/r7/p2pP1P1/1ppP1P2/P1P3N1/R5BP/2Q2RK1 w - - 0 20

1.f5 b3 2.Raf2

```

Some GMs and also engines prefer to push the pawn to `f5` and continue attacking just in king's side. White's `20.axb4` made a passed pawn for black on square `b3` (two moves to promote) and black got counter play.

Before move 28 white had attacking chances and a draw at least. But white made a blunder `28.Nf1??`, if `28.Bf1` was played, then the game can continue in this way:

```
2bqnrk1/5p1p/5PpQ/3pP1P1/2pP1R2/2P3N1/6BP/1q4K1 w - - 1 28

1. Bf1 Qd1 2. Rh4 Qh5 3. Nxh5 gxh5 4. Rxh5 Bf5

```

The game is almost a draw with some minor advantages for black. It's ambiguous.

But white played `28.Nf1??` and black put his queen on `e1` to capture the white's rook on `h4` -- a big material advantage for black.

# Answer
> 4 votes
How about 28 Kf2? Answer either 28 ... Qc2+ or 28 ... Qd1 with 29. Ne2.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I ran this position through an analysis engine, which assesses it as a win for black after 28. Bf1 Qd1 29. Rh4 Qh5 30. Rxh5? gxh5 31. Nxh5 Qa5 32. Ng7 Qxc3 33. Nxe8 Qxd4+ 34. Kg2 35. Qg6.

But it gives Black only a slight edge after 30. Nxh5 (instead of Rxh5) gxh5 31. Rxh5 Bf5 32. Bh3 Bg6 33. e6 Nxf6 34. gxf6 Qxf6.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Yes, Anand had a mate if not for the blunder. Here is the line. I don't know why everyone missed it.

28.Bf1 Qd4 29.Rh4 Qh5 30.Rxh4 gxH5 31.Nxh5 Here any move by black would be met with 32.Ng7! Now, if 32....Nxg7 33.Qxg7 mate. Any move by black now would be met with 33.Nxe7 or simply moving the night away to any other square followed by Qg7 mate. Have I missed anything?

---
Tags: analysis, world-championship, anand, carlsen
---


# Question
Title: How did I still lose with 1 piece advantage?
Throughout the game, I thought I had a positional and piece advantage, but I STILL LOST!

What did I do wrong? (using Ruy Lopez btw)

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Nc3 a6
5. Bxc6 dxc6
6. O-O Nxe4
7. Nxe4 Bg4
8. h3 Bh5
9. g4 Bg6
10. Nc3 Qd6
11. Re1 O-O-O
12. Ne5 f6
13. Ng6 hxg6
14. d4 Rxh3
15. Kf1 Rh1
16. Kg2 Qh2
17. Kf3 Qh3
18. Ke2 Re8
19. Kd2 Re8xe1
20. Qxe1 Rxe1
21. Kxe1 Qg4
22. Be3 Bb4

```

At this point, I surrendered because I'm at a positional disadvantage, my knight is pinned and my rook is still undeveloped.

I know one weakness of using Ruy Lopez is that your left side develops slowly, but damn! Where did I make a mistake? Was I just unlucky?

**EDIT 1:** OMG I just realized he baited my king-side pawns to open up for an attack! \>:(

I should've read this article earlier: Keeping Your Castled King Safe

# Answer
> 10 votes
Two things leap out at me:

1. Moderate error: After 8...Bh5, you're a piece up but you're not done developing and your knight on e4 is unprotected. Reasonable moves (I'm sure there are others) include 9.d3, supporting your knight and allowing your bishop to develop; 9.Re1, centralizing your rook and supporting your knight; and 9.Ng3, kicking Black's bishop and moving your knight to a safe square. Instead you played 9.g4, weakening your king's position and forcing the Black bishop to a place where it attacks your knight.
2. Huge error: You're still doing OK as of 13...hxg6, but your h3-pawn is under attack. (Note that this wouldn't have been an issue if you hadn't played 9.g4.) The simplest defense is 14.Qf3 but 14.Kg2 is possible too. Instead you let Black's rook capture on h3 and now your king is under severe attack.

You could have defended against the ensuing attack better, but I'm not going to bother with that because the way to win games like these is to not even let it get to that point.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I think that after

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. Nc3 a6 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. O-O Nxe4 7. Nxe4 Bg4 8. h3 Bh5 9.Ng3 Bg6 10.Nxe5 Qd6 11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.Re1+ Be7 13.Qg4

```

it is lights out for black. In general, avoid moving pawns in front of your king after it has castled kingside or queenside. Try to catch your opponents king while it is still in the center.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Three (bad) things happened:

1. You weakened your kingside by playing `g4`.
2. Black castled O-O-O, to take advantage of number 1, while protecting his king behind the phalanx of (doubled) pawns.
3. The worst thing that happened was that `13. Nxg6 hxg6` opened up the h file for Black in front of a rook that had not moved. You should have moved the N back to `f3` to keep a defender in place, and to keep the h file closed. On move 14, your best chance was the defensive `Qf3`, rather than the developing `d4`. You had a won game up to move 13, and a questionable game after `14...Rxh3` (Black could have played differently than he did and gotten a perpetual check to compensate for his piece down.)

---
Tags: opening, theory, endgame, positional-play
---


title: No registration chess

text:
# Question
Title: No registration chess
Are there any free, either email or possibly peer to peer turn based, chess pc apps that look decent? I'm looking to play with a friend directly, not have to go through registration, and not in real time.

# Answer
> 3 votes
How about

http://en.lichess.org/

I just found it. There is a "Play with a friend" option and you can send a URL to a friend and play without having to register.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Not an app, but very nice if you don't need many bells and whistles is http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php

I recently used it to play a correspondence game with a friend via messenger. You play on the right board and use the "link to share" button to create a link like: http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php?m=e4\_d5\_exd5\_Qxd5\_Nf3 As you can see, that link contains the move history, so it's easy to play by sending back and forth the link created after your move. You can even export PGN and FEN files whenever you feel like it to import somewhere else.

---
Tags: software, online-chess
---


# Question
Title: Automatically annotating the beginning of my games
I play chess online and use an engine to review the game afterwards. This works well when I get out of the opening, but under my current configuration (Raptor GUI running StockFish) I don't get great insight into the beginning of my games. Instead of using the automatic annotation I end up stepping through the first couple moves using a free online openings guide. There are two drawbacks to my current system:

1. Manually reentering my moves through a the web interface is a little painful
2. I could use a larger opening book and more detailed comments

Is there a tool (free or commercial) that will provide this? Bonus points if it runs under OS X.

I've looked at the offerings from another question on annotation, one that's not focused on the opening. It looks to me like Tarrasch will tell me what the book moves are, but not tell me much about them, and Arena does something with opening books, but I can't tell what. These are PC applications so I'm basing my comments only on the websites.

# Answer
> 1 votes
As far as I know, all the tools available today offer an opening book (tree) that has to be traversed manually by clicking yourself forwards and backwards in the book. To evaluate the position at every point of the opening, you can have an engine running and combine this with the statistics that are included in the opening book for white win / draw / black win. Relatively recently, Chessbase Online entered the stage. Let's not forget about Chess dot com and Chess 365 who also offer online books. So instead of having a software installed on your computer, you can use these online services to check and evaluate your openings.

Additionally, you could consider posting opening related questions here on Chess SE and get some valuable insights...!

# Answer
> 0 votes
The best move in opening positions is often very subjective. Player comfort with and knowledge of the position is much more important than an objective evaluation or database statistics. Databases can inform you of what has been played before and how it has worked out for other players, but not what you would do with such a position. Except for tactical mistakes, a computer evaluation is mostly worthless, because it provides no understanding beyond the evaluation.

**Good opening books are the best resource.**

Consider the difference between the statistically equal first moves for white. The choice between e2-e4, d2-d4, c2-c4, and Ng1-f3 is subjective. If the player has good knowledge and comfort with the postions, b2-b3, f2-f4, g2-g3, and even b2-b4 are reasonable choices. These latter are what I call "objectively not the best, but not bad moves". Opening positions are full of such moves. After 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6, 3.Bd3 is a good example of such a move. 3.Nc3 is objectively the best, but since very few books on Pirc or Philidor cover this move, you can gain an advantage of knowledge by using it.

By the time club players reach move 10, they or their opponent are likely to have played one of these "not bad moves" and drifted into unknown or rarely played lines. Understanding the ideas behind the placement of pieces, general plans, and common tactics of the opening you are playing are more important than what has been played before.

Good opening books provide knowledge of positions and reasons behind evaluations. What is a good opening book depends on the skill level of the player. I generally find that the Starting Out series or the Move by Move series are the best for club players.

---
Tags: opening, software, programming, annotation
---


title: What does it mean to win "by force"?

text:
# Question
Title: What does it mean to win "by force"?
I occasionally see annotations/commentary where a move / line is said to make (for example) white win "by force". I am unsure if it has the general sense of "this move initiates a forcing sequence where white will come out on top" or something more specific, say, "with this move, white exerts indefensible pressure ('force') on a particular square / sector (say more attackers than defenders on f7 with further defense impossible) that will give them victory."

What exactly does it mean?

# Answer
> 6 votes
"Wins by force" means that the move leads to a series of moves that makes it impossible for the losing side to defend the position. Here, the definition of "winning" can vary between annotators. Checkmate is the extreme case of winning. Having an advantage of two pawns without any compensation for the opponent is somewhere at the low end of a winning position. The whole term "by force" refers to the fact that the opponent is unable to avoid getting a worse / losing position. At what point does a position become winning? That can depend on the position and the players involved. Usually, higher rated players have higher expectations on them to win better positions. If a game is annotated as "this move wins by force" then it means that the annotators expects the player at the board to win the position that arises after the sequence of moves is completed.

# Answer
> 5 votes
> I occasionally see annotations/commentary where a move / line is said to make (for example) white win "by force". I am unsure if it has the general sense of **"this move initiates a forcing sequence where white will come out on top"** or something more specific, say, *"with this move, white exerts indefensible pressure ('force') on a particular square / sector (say more attackers than defenders on f7 with further defense impossible) that will give them victory."*
>
> What exactly does it mean?

The bold part is correct answer.

Forced move is exactly that: A move you are forced to play. A **forcing** move is exactly that: a move that forces the opponent to respond in a specific way, **limiting his freedom of choice.**

Take *Alekhine's defense* as example. White is **forcing** the exchange of knights, while Black is **forced** to exchange the knight:

```
[Title "Demonstrating difference between forced and forcing move"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.c5 Nd5 5.Nc3 Nxc3 6.dxc3

```

The italic part in my quote of your question is never called "force". The term *pressure* is commonly used to describe it, like in this example:

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "r4r1k/pp2qppp/6b1/8/2B5/1QP5/PP3RPP/5R1K w - - 0 1"]

```

So in this example we can say something like this:

*White exerts decisive **pressure** on the `f7` square which would lead to a **forced** win for him if he plays `1.Bxf7`.*

After `1.Bxf7` Black is **forced** to exchange off all his pieces (not exchanging proves even worse for Black) after which the endgame is won for White. That is why we say White has a forced win: he can *force* Black to enter into a lost endgame.

Hopefully this clarifies things.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It's a bit of hyperbole to be sure. I can't think of many cases where such a phrase would be used. Normally, "...and wins" is good enough.

But it means there's no conceivable way that White will lose the game and it takes no special skill to finish the game. The opposite phrase is Black's position is "dead lost."

I have also seen in print "black should resign" when the position was embarrassingly untenable but Black played on.

---
Tags: terminology, annotation, winning
---


# Question
Title: How could I defend/attack in this situation?
How could I defend/attack in this situation? I feel that I'm in big trouble.

```
 [FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6
2.e4 Nxe4
3.Bc4 Nxf2
4.Kxf2 d5
5.Bxd5 Qxd5
6.Ke1 e5
7.dxe5 Qxe5+
8.Qe2 Bb4+
9.c3 Nc6
10.Nf3 Qe7
11.cxb4 O-O
12.Bg5 Qxb4+
13.Nbd2 Bg4
14.a3 Qc5
15.Be7 Nd4
16.Nxd4 Qxd4
17.Nf3 Qd7
18.Bc5 Rae8
19.Rd1 Qa4

```

At the end I won, but thanks to my opponent, because he made a lot of mistakes.

P.S.: if anybody could give me any recommendation, to how I could defend when, the other player, moves very aggressively in the opening, it'd be welcome.

# Answer
The way I see it, neither of you was aggressive in the opening -- you both tried to get rid of your pieces as quickly as possible! Being aggressive is getting many pieces in active positions quickly, not giving them away.

When we give advice, we have to take into account the level of the players. Both of you need to work on the most basic skill first: **Piece safety**. The first skill to learn is to recognize when undefended pieces can simply be captured, to always do that if your opponent gives you the chance, and to never give him the chance to just take a whole piece without repercussions. The moment one of you starts doing that, he'll blow the other off the board completely.

Let's show a number of positions where this was the case:

```
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pppppppp/5n2/8/3PP3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 2"]

```

After 2.e4?, black can take a pawn for free, and he does.

```
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pppppppp/8/8/2BP4/8/PPP2nPP/RNBQK1NR w KQkq - 0 4"]

```

Black gives away a full knight with 3...Nxf2. Why??

```
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/ppp1pppp/8/3B4/3P4/8/PPP2KPP/RNBQ2NR b kq - 0 5"]

```

White returns the favour immediately! Why give away a bishop with 5.Bxd5 when you could have just retreated it, say to d3?

```
[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppp2ppp/2n5/4q3/1b6/2P5/PP2Q1PP/RNB1K1NR w kq - 1 10"]

```

After 9...Nc6, black has done nothing to prevent white taking the bishop on b4! Had he played 9...Qxe2+ 10.Nxe2 Bc5 instead he wouldn't have lost a piece.

```
[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppp2ppp/2n5/4q3/1b6/2P2N2/PP2Q1PP/RNB1K2R b kq - 2 10"]

```

But white doesn't take it!

```
[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppp1qppp/2n5/8/1b6/2P2N2/PP2Q1PP/RNB1K2R w kq - 3 11"]

```

Black still ignores the threat to his bishop! He could still have played 10...Qxe2+ and then move the bishop.

```
[FEN "r4rk1/ppp1Bppp/2n5/2q5/6b1/P4N2/1P1NQ1PP/R3K2R b - - 2 15"]

```

White just played 15.Be7??, giving away his bishop. It's attacked twice (by the knight on c6 and the queen on c5), and only defended by the queen, so black could just have played 15...Qxe7 or 15...Nxe7 !

```
[FEN "r4rk1/ppp1Bppp/8/2q5/3n2b1/P4N2/1P1NQ1PP/R3K2R w - - 3 16"]

```

Instead, black insists on giving away a knight himself with 15...Nd4. If white simply answers 16.Bxc5 Nxe2 17.Kxe2, white has won a full knight.

```
[FEN "r4rk1/pppqBppp/8/8/6b1/P4N2/1P2Q1PP/R3K2R w - - 2 18"]

```

Now white is in some trouble, because he never bothered to get his king out of the center and a rook is threatening to come to the e-file, capturing the queen. There are two options: move the king away (it can't castle anymore, it moved to f2 in the opening) and defend the bishop with 18.Kf2 Rfe8 19.Rhe1. White will try to move his queen out of the pin next, say with 20.Qd1, so he's better. The other option is to take the offered rook with 18.Bxf8 Re8 19.Bb4 Rxe2+ 20.Kxe2, and white has two rooks and a bishop for the queen, which is good.

But the point is: if you see nothing of that, then you play Bxf8, because the rook is worth more than the bishop.

```
[FEN "4rrk1/ppp2ppp/8/2B5/q5b1/P4N2/1P2Q1PP/3RK2R w - - 6 20"]

```

But white didn't and we get to the end of the game, white is in trouble. But black for some reason moved the rook from *a8* to e8, so that the one on f8 can still be captured.

After 19.Bxf8 Rxe2+ 20.Kxe2 Kxf8 white has two rooks for a queen and two pawns, his king is in the middle and his rooks aren't active. White is lost. But that means nothing as long as both players keep giving away pieces at the same rate as they've done so far, anything can still happen.

Edit: as AlwaysLearningNewStuff points out, in the final position white can block the attack on the queen with 19.Be3!, he's still a knight up for two pawns, and he can probably untangle his position with Kf2, Rhe1 et cetera. That's much better.
> 12 votes

# Answer
In addition to RemcoGerlich's excellent answer, here is some computer analysis using the program Stockfish DD 64 SSE4.2.

Notation used -

> **!** \- Good move
>
> **!?** \- Interesting move
>
> **?!** \- Dubious move
>
> **?** \- Bad move
>
> **??** \- Very bad move

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

      1. d4 Nf6 2. e4 $2 (2. c4 $5) 2... Nxe4 3. Bc4 $6 (3. Bd3 $5) 3... Nxf2 (3...d5!) $4 4.
      Kxf2 d5! 5. Bxd5 $4 (5. Bb3 $1) 5... Qxd5 6. Ke1 $2 (6. Nf3 $1) 6... e5 $2 (6...
      Qxg2 $1 7. Qf3 Qxc2) 7. dxe5 $2 (7. Nf3 $1) 7... Qxe5+ (7... Qxg2 $1 8. Qf3
      Qxc2) 8. Qe2 $1 Bb4+ (8... Qxe2+ $5) 9. c3 Nc6 $4 (9... Qxe2+ 10. Nxe2 Bc5) 10.
      Nf3 $4 (10. cxb4 $1) 10... Qe7 $4 (10... Qxe2+ $1 11. Kxe2 Bd6) 11. cxb4 O-O? (11...Nxb4!)
      12. Bg5 $2 (12. Qxe7 $1 Nxe7 13. Nc3) 12... Qxb4+ 13. Nbd2 (13. Kf2 $1) 13...
      Bg4 $1 14. a3 $2 Qc5 $2 (14... Qxb2 $1) 15. Be7 $4 (15. Be3 $1 Qh5 16. Kf2)
      15... Nd4 $4 (15... Nxe7 $1) 16. Nxd4 $2 (16. Bxc5 $1 Nxe2 17. Bxf8) 16... Qxd4
      17. Nf3 $1 Qd7 18. Bc5 $4 (18. Rd1 $1) 18... Rae8 $1 19. Rd1 $4 (19. Be3!) Qa4??
      (19...Rxe2+ $1 20. Kxe2 Qb5+ 21. Kf2 Qxc5+)

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: theory, defense, attack
---


title: Another chess problem

text:
# Question
Title: Another chess problem
The below puzzle **White to mate in two moves**. I tried all combinations. I can't figure it out how to solve this? I am starting to think this as a bug in my mobile application which is showing wrong information that it can be solved in just two moves.

```
[FEN "2K3Bn/B/3pp1N/1p1P3R/4k/R5q/N1P3Pp/7Q w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
To be fair, I tried solving this manually.

Qb1 works.

Basic idea - We see that the Black king cannot move. All that is needed is to give it a check. But where to give it a check from? The Black queen guards many key squares like h4, e3, c3, e1. Thus, White should try to find other squares. Qb1 threatens mate with Qb4+.

This is what I calculated -

```
1...exd5 2. Bxd5#
1...e5 2. Qb4#
1...b4 2. Qxb4#
1...h1=Q 2. Qb4#
1...Qxa3 2. c3!#
1...Qe1 2. Qxe1#
1...Qe3 2. Rxe3#
1...Qb3 2. cxb3#
1...Nxg6 2. Qb4#

```

I also confirmed with a computer that Qb1 is correct.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: problems
---


# Question
Title: What are the common rules of chess rules that are lesser known
Some of the chess rules are lesser known to beginners than others. Can anyone suggest such rules, like En Passant, Three-fold repetition, Fifty-move rule, Stalemate, Castling Problems?

# Answer
I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that when you say "rules are not much popular", you mean "rules that are lesser known".

I can think of two rules which beginners are known to struggle with: castling and en passant.

The concept behind castling is relatively simple, but beginners commonly struggle with the conditions that all must be "true" in order to castle successfully, which include never having moved your king and your king not walking through check to arrive to his final position.

From my experience, en passant is much more difficult for newbies to grasp. It is a special type of pawn capture where your pawn takes your opponent's pawn "in passing". Details about this rule can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En\_passant
> 4 votes

---
Tags: rules
---


title: How do you castle in one smooth motion?

text:
# Question
Title: How do you castle in one smooth motion?
One time I saw GM Gawain Jones playing a blitz game where he castled by placing one hand on his King and Rook. With a quick twist, the pieces were in the castled position. It happened so quickly, I didn't quite see how he did it, but I was mighty impressed.

Normally, a player will move his King, then use the same hand to move the Rook afterwards, but has anybody else seen (or done themselves) a one-motion castling?

# Answer
I do this often in blitz, although it is considered somewhat inappropriate in a tournament setting.

The quick way to castle with one hand is to make a motion where you "capture" the rook. In a typical capture, you pick up your piece and knock the opposing piece into your hand. You then take the piece off the board.

What I mean by "capturing" your rook is that you perform the same motion, but instead of using your palm to carry the piece off the board, you use it to guide the rook to its appropriate square. At the same time, your king is knocking the rook over to where it belongs.

It takes a bit of practice to knock the rook over, but when done properly you can castle in a fluid motion without having to make multiple motions with your hand.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I think this is plain illegal, according to FIDE rules, all moves must be made with one hand (in castling by picking the king first).

As side note, it is also illegal to move with one hand and press the clock button with a different hand.

See http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=124&view=article

It's true that § 4.1 "Each move must be made with one hand only." but that doesn't imply that the single hand can't touch both King and Rook simultaneously. Indeed, that possibility is anticipated by § 4.4a "If a player having the move: deliberately touches his king and rook he must castle on that side if it is legal to do so."
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rules, castling, etiquette, rooks, kings
---


title: How to craft a chess set?

text:
# Question
Title: How to craft a chess set?
I'm thinking to have fun this summer, trying to craft my own wooden chess set. Has anyone tried doing so? How should I proceed? What materials to buy? what guides to follow?

# Answer
I have not tried to do exactly chess set but I have some experience (really basic) with doing things from wood. I will tell what I learned from my experience, and may be someone more experienced can refine it.

Crafting from wood is not really that hard (on amateur level). You need:

* material (basically wood and in the beginning almost any wood is acceptable, but not the wood you can buy for setting the fire. Also do not listen to people who will suggest you to buy most expensive/cool wood, because if you are doing it for the first time, you will most probably fail a few times before you can do something. When you see that you are ok, you can buy better materiel)
* Lathe (it quickly rotates your piece, allowing you to create axis of rotation elements)
* chisel (to make small holes inside)
* file (to refine your piece and to add some details)
* hammer (everyone needs hammer. You might need it to protect your pieces from other people)
* varnish (when you finish your thing, you have to cover it look better or not to get a thorn)

Not all of the things are needed. Also do not be intimidated when you see that this things are so big and your pieces should be really small: there are small equivalents of all the tools.

Tools like lathe are expensive, but a lot of schools and may be some repair shops can have it. So it is a good idea to go and ask them for permission to use it (you also should be careful to read how to use it, because it can damage you).

So, you have the tools. First of all try to create bigger things. From my experience, the smaller the thing you want to do - the more careful/skilled you have to be. So try to create big pawn/rook in the beginning. Like 20-40 centimeters high. Not 2-4 cm. When you feel that you are good with big things, you can go smaller.

Having a lathe it will be pretty easy, because as you noticed - all the pieces (except of the knight) are symmetrical along the Z-axis. To carve the wood, you use lathe with chisel (it is hard for me to explain how it work: all you do is to move chisel to the spinning wood and it cuts away part of it). This way you can do everything except of a knight. For knight you have to use only chisel and it is really complicated (for people like me).

Mark the wood with pen/pencil/marker to know where you have to cut it and always compare the piece you do with the same one you already done (unless you want all your bishops to be a different diameter/size).

Than you refine your pieces with file, paint them and later varnish. Do not be disappointed if you will fail at the first time and do not try to use complicated designs in the beginning.

This is some old school techniques, for a new generation - take a look at 3d printer which can carve from wood.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: chessboards, chess-set
---