# Question
Title: List of female chess players by peak FIDE rating with countries?
same question as here but with countries please. hopefully we can have a list as close to the original wiki page as possible.

I'll start:

1 - Hungary - Judit Polgar - 2735 - 2005-07 - 1976 - N/A - first and only female player so far to achieve 2700+ rating

# Answer
> 3 votes
Here are the results from the relevant queries on my database constructed from the downloads available from the FIDE rating download website for the top 100 (actually 102 since there was a 3 way tie for 100th place) female players by standard ratings.

The "Period" is the first FIDE rating list in which the player achieved the rating. If the player didn't play rated standard for a year after that then they obviously retain the rating for the next year so the "Period" is the year and month in which FIDE first recorded that rating for them.

**PlayerName FedName MaxRating Period**

1. Polgar, Judit Hungary 2735 2005/07
2. Hou, Yifan China 2686 2015/03
3. Koneru, Humpy India 2623 2009/07
4. Muzychuk, Anna Slovenia 2606 2012/07
5. Ju, Wenjun China 2604 2017/03
6. Goryachkina, Aleksandra Russia 2596 2021/06
7. Muzychuk, Anna Ukraine 2587 2012/10
8. Kosintseva, Tatiana Russia 2581 2010/11
9. Zhao, Xue China 2579 2013/09
10. Polgar, Zsuzsa Hungary 2577 2005/01
11. Kosintseva, Nadezhda Russia 2576 2010/11
12. Xie, Jun China 2574 2008/01
13. Dzagnidze, Nana Georgia 2573 2015/06
14. Muzychuk, Mariya Ukraine 2563 2016/03
15. Muzychuk, Mariya Ukraine 2563 2019/04
16. Kosteniuk, Alexandra Russia 2561 2018/01
17. Chiburdanidze, Maia USSR 2560 1988/01
18. Galliamova, Alisa Russia 2560 1998/07
19. Lahno, Kateryna Russia 2560 2018/12
20. Stefanova, Antoaneta Bulgaria 2560 2003/01
21. Lahno, Kateryna Ukraine 2557 2012/01
22. Chiburdanidze, Maia Georgia 2551 1999/01
23. Cramling, Pia Sweden 2550 2008/10
24. Gunina, Valentina Russia 2548 2015/06
25. Zhu, Chen Qatar 2548 2008/01
26. Lei, Tingjie China 2545 2018/03
27. Harika, Dronavalli India 2543 2016/11
28. Cmilyte, Viktorija Lithuania 2542 2017/06
29. Zhu, Chen China 2539 2000/07
30. Sebag, Marie France 2537 2013/03
31. Zatonskih, Anna United States 2537 2011/05
32. Khotenashvili, Bela Georgia 2531 2013/06
33. Tan, Zhongyi China 2530 2018/08
34. Batsiashvili, Nino Georgia 2528 2018/03
35. Danielian, Elina Armenia 2521 2011/07
36. Ioseliani, Nana Georgia 2520 1997/07
37. Saduakassova, Dinara Kazakhstan 2519 2020/01
38. Xu, Yuhua China 2517 2006/04
39. Paehtz, Elisabeth Germany 2513 2018/09
40. Wang, Lei China 2512 2001/10
41. Hoang, Thanh Trang Hungary 2511 2013/11
42. Pogonina, Natalija Russia 2508 2014/07
43. Kovalevskaya, Ekaterina Russia 2507 2001/07
44. Zhu, Jiner China 2507 2019/10
45. Arakhamia-Grant, Ketevan Scotland 2506 2009/07
46. Stefanova, Antoaneta FIDE 2506 2011/05
47. Wang, Pin China 2506 2000/10
48. Abdumalik, Zhansaya Kazakhstan 2505 2021/07
49. Girya, Olga Russia 2505 2017/09
50. Polgar, Sofia Hungary 2505 1998/07
51. Socko, Monika Poland 2505 2008/04
52. Mkrtchian, Lilit Armenia 2503 2010/01
53. Ruan, Lufei China 2503 2014/01
54. Krush, Irina United States 2502 2013/10
55. Matveeva, Svetlana Russia 2502 2004/01
56. Ushenina, Anna Ukraine 2502 2007/07
57. Qin, Kanying China 2501 2000/07
58. Skripchenko, Almira France 2501 2003/01
59. Javakhishvili, Lela Georgia 2500 2010/03
60. Zhukova, Natalia Ukraine 2499 2010/05
61. Skripchenko, Almira Moldova 2497 2001/10
62. Gaprindashvili, Nona USSR 2495 1987/07
63. Ioseliani, Nana USSR 2495 1988/07
64. Huang, Qian China 2494 2013/09
65. Kashlinskaya, Alina Russia 2494 2020/04
66. Khademalsharieh, Sarasadat Iran 2494 2020/01
67. Hoang, Thanh Trang Vietnam 2493 2000/10
68. Arakhamia-Grant, Ketevan Georgia 2490 1997/01
69. Nominerdene, Davaademberel Mongolia 2490 2016/04
70. Maric, Alisa Yugoslavia 2489 1999/07
71. Shuvalova, Polina Russia 2489 2021/06
72. Peptan, Corina-Isabela Romania 2485 2003/07
73. Vijayalakshmi, Subbaraman India 2485 2005/10
74. Dembo, Yelena Greece 2482 2009/09
75. Gaponenko, Inna Ukraine 2482 2005/04
76. Atalik, Ekaterina Turkey 2481 2011/09
77. Galliamova, Alisa Ukraine 2480 1996/01
78. Bodnaruk, Anastasia Russia 2479 2016/06
79. Shen, Yang China 2479 2016/09
80. Arakhamia-Grant, Ketevan USSR 2475 1991/07
81. Melia, Salome Georgia 2475 2014/08
82. Khurtsidze, Nino Georgia 2472 1999/07
83. Peng, Zhaoqin Netherlands 2472 2002/04
84. Moser, Eva Austria 2471 2012/07
85. Daulyte, Deimante Lithuania 2470 2018/07
86. Korbut, Ekaterina Russia 2467 2008/04
87. Munguntuul, Batkhuyag Mongolia 2467 2011/09
88. Romanko, Marina Russia 2466 2009/04
89. Kachiani-Gersinska, Ketino Germany 2465 2002/04
90. Rajlich, Iweta Poland 2465 2009/09
91. Hunt, Harriet V England 2463 2009/01
92. Alexandrova, Olga Ukraine 2462 2003/01
93. Guo, Qi China 2462 2014/03
94. Bojkovic, Natasa Yugoslavia 2460 1994/07
95. Mammadzada, Gunay Azerbaijan 2460 2021/07
96. Paikidze, Nazi Georgia 2455 2011/01
97. Tairova, Elena Russia 2455 2009/11
98. Padmini, Rout India 2454 2015/03
99. Bulmaga, Irina Romania 2453 2020/02
100. Ding, Yixin China 2451 2014/07
101. Khukhashvili, Sopiko Georgia 2451 2009/09
102. Stepovaia, Tatiana Russia 2451 2001/07

# Answer
> 2 votes
Well, let's just use the list from Brian Towers' answer on the other topic and add the relevant countries. **I didn't yet add all the countries.**

I make this a community wiki since I won't have time to check data for all players myself.

When a player has (or has had) several nationalities, we pick the flag she was playing for when reaching her highest rating.

1. Polgar, Judit 2735 7/2005, 10/2005 , Hungary
2. Hou, Yifan 2686 3/2015, 5/2015 , China
3. Koneru, Humpy 2623 7/2009 , India
4. Muzychuk, Anna 2606 7/2012, 8/2012 , Ukraine
5. Ju, Wenjun 2604 3/2017 , China
6. Goryachkina, Aleksandra 2593 2/2021 , Russia
7. Kosintseva, Tatiana 2581 11/2020 , Russia
8. Zhao, Xue 2579 9/2013, 10/2013 , China
9. Polgar, Zsuzsa 2577 1/2005 , Hungary
10. Kosintseva, Nadezhda 2576 11/2010 , Russia
11. Xie, Jun 2574 1/2008 , China
12. Dzagnidze, Nana 2573 6/2015 - 10/2015 , Georgia
13. Muzychuk, Mariya 2563 3/2016, 4-6/2019 , Ukraine
14. Kosteniuk, Alexandra 2561 1/2018, 2/2018 , Russia
15. Lahno, Kateryna 2560 12/2018 - 2/2019 , Ukraine
16. Galliamova, Alisa 2560 7/1998 , Georgia
17. Stefanova, Antoaneta 2560 1/2003, 5-7/2010 , Bulgaria
18. Chiburdanidze, Maia 2560 1/1988 , Georgia (USSR)
19. Cramling, Pia 2550 10/2008 , Sweden
20. Gunina, Valentina 2548 6-7/2015 , Ukraine
21. Zhu, Chen 2548 1/2008 , China
22. Lei, Tingjie 2545 3/2018 , China
23. Harika, Dronavalli 2543 11-12/2016
24. Cmilyte, Viktorija 2542 6/2017 , Latvia
25. Sebag, Marie 2537 3/2013 , France
26. Zatonskih, Anna 2537 5/2011 , USA
27. Khotenashvili, Bela 2531 6/2013
28. Tan, Zhongyi 2530 3-4/2016 , China
29. Batsiashvili, Nino 2528 3/2018
30. Danielian, Elina 2521 7/2011
31. Ioseliani, Nana 2520 7/1977 , Georgia (USSR)
32. Saduakassova, Dinara 2519 1/2020
33. Xu, Yuhua 2517 4/2006 - 7/2007 , China
34. Paehtz, Elisabeth 2513 9-10/2018 , Germany
35. Wang, Lei 2512 10/2001 , China
36. Hoang, Thanh Trang 2511 11/2013 - 2/2014
37. Pogonina, Natalija 2508 7/2014
38. Kovalevskaya, Ekaterina 2507 7/2001
39. Zhu, Jiner 2507 10/2019 , China
40. Arakhamia-Grant, Ketevan 2506 7/2009
41. Wang, Pin 2506 10/2000
42. Polgar, Sofia 2505 7/1998 , Hungary
43. Girya, Olga 2505 9/2017
44. Socko, Monika 2505 4/2008 , Poland
45. Ruan, Lufei 2503 1/2014
46. Mkrtchian, Lilit 2503 1-3/2010
47. Matveeva, Svetlana 2502 1/2004
48. Krush, Irina 2502 10-11/2013, USA
49. Ushenina, Anna 2502 7/2007
50. Qin, Kanying 2501 7/2000
51. Skripchenko, Almira 2501 1-4/2003 , France

---
Tags: history, rating, fide, statistics, records
---


# Question
Title: Is a team of GMs stronger than a single super-GM?
For example Magnus Carlsen is currently the world number 1 and favourite to win a match against any other player in the world. (Similarly for Wesley So in chess960.) Is he also favoured to win a match against Fabiano Caruana + Mamedyarov + Ding Liren acting in consultation? How about just GMs instead of other Super-GMs?

If it matters: standard classical time controls (shorter time controls makes it hard to consult teammates after all), the team of GMs are side-by-side, and they're playing electronically with the opponent in another room (so opponent cannot eavesdrop on their conversation). The team know each other and prepare in advance, and so does their opponent.

# Answer
> 3 votes
copying from question post.

> Q: Could a team of us \[British GMs\] beat Magnus?
>
> A: We stand a much better chance. I mean just in terms of spotting tactics or spotting ideas. But somebody would need to be the boss somehow with good clear idea of what needs to be done because obviously if you've got completely different people it could get confusing. But I do think that the team would have a better chance than individually - absolutely.

Source: Grandmaster Matthew Sadler from 'Silicon Road: TCEC Live! TCEC SuperFinal 31st July 2021: Leela-Stockfish Game 63 (Najdorf 6.Be3)' (2021Aug)

---

To add something original:

We've seen the Botez siblings team up against Eric Rosen to avoid adoption at least. See here or the 'in the hall of the mountain king' part.

Consider like one person has a particular tactical plan and then it's split into several moves that the opponent could respond with. Assign to each move to a team member. Tactically, I really don't see how you can't delegate here. Just get 1 person to do the strategy as Matthew Sadler seems to say.

---

Maybe related: https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/36747

# Answer
> 5 votes
I think a team of GMs are not significantly stronger than a single GM.

My reasoning is: Thinking is fast while communicating is slow and error-prone. It takes dramatically more time to explain an assessment to another GM and while trying to explain some things will be omitted/forgetted. In the end a team of GMs will spend considerably more time to produce a quality move and that move may not be significantly better to justify spending extra time.

Plus, more teammates the team have, there will be more communication channels (grows quadratically respect to number of teammates) and this will make communication less and less efficient.

An alternative approach to overcome inefficiencies: Let the team to be formed as 1 player (the best player) and N advisors advising player when they believe they can significantly improve players move, otherwise they don't interrupt. Ideally advisors should excel the best player in a particular area of chess. For example Adviser 1 is the best endgame player and advisor 2 is Sicilian expert and so on.

Also the team can switch player in the middle of the game to avoid player to get tired and play weaker especially in long games.

# Answer
> 3 votes
There are no studies I know of on the topic of X GMs vs 1 GM, so I'll answer based off my own reasoning.

First, let's assume the chance of a GM making a mistake on any move is 10% (when playing against a fellow GM). With 3 GMs, the chance of them all making a mistake on any move = 10%\*10%\*10% = never going to happen in one game.

The exception to this math is a position where all GMs are expected to falter due to the position's complexity. Assume the chance of each GM making a mistake in such a position is 90%. Now the chance of the team making a mistake = 90%\*90%\*90% = 72.9%. These odds aren't great for the team, but they're still *much* better than the odds of one lone GM making a mistake.

The logic discussed above can be applied at lower levels too, such as seeing subtle positional ideas. One GM may not have a good chance at seeing intricate ideas, but with three GMS the x%\*x%\*x% logic works well.

However, there's the issue of the time it takes for the 3 GMs to consult, due to arguments that may arise. If the GMs are split on which move to play, they'll spend a good amount of time trying to convince the "other side" that their move is better. This isn't such a big deal, since the GMs would only argue in very subjective positions, which aren't very common.

Finally, there's one last aspect to consider. For any GM to play at a higher level than normal, they would need x amount of time to think (let's assume this is 20 minutes per move). In a standard game, the team would only be able to think for about 5-7ish minutes per move. 3 GMs thinking for 5-7 minutes would not reach the *potential* of one GM thinking for 20 minutes.

In conclusion, a team of GMs would drastically reduce the number of mistakes they make (both large and small). However, they wouldn't be playing at a level far higher than a normal GM (higher, but not far higher). I would put the Caruana + Mamedyarov + Ding Liren team at around 2880 strength (fair level above Carlsen). The reason is that they are the top players in the world, and make mistakes much more rarely than average GMs. Thus, the "mistake-limiting" effect of the team wouldn't help as much, but would still help.

# Answer
> 3 votes
There was a public exhibition with a very similar scenario to what you describe. It was called "Carlsen vs The World" and took place in 2010. The world was represented by internet viewers, who could vote on moves proposed by Nakamura, Polgar and Vachier-Lagrave.

In that scenario having three top GMs provide moves proved a handicap, as there was no consistent plan behind the moves. Judit Polgar said: "It was like cooking with too many chefs, who all wanted to use different spices."

Carlsen crushed "The World" pretty decisively.

In a scenario in which they can actually discuss the moves and choose something consistent together, that would certainly be much less of a problem. But I still think that coordinating plans, calculations and responsibility would be quite difficult and it is unclear to me whether there would actually be an improvement in strength.

---
Tags: elo, grandmaster, super-grandmaster, team
---


# Question
Title: Chess variants-Anyone recall the name for one that has a "superpiece" with the movements of the queen and knight?
What is the name of the chess piece in a variant game where there is a piece that moves like the queen AND a knight?

Is there a name for this variant?

# Answer
According to the Wikipedia variants page, there does not seem to be a variant with a specific name, but there are several variants that use the queen-knight hybrid, which is called an Amazon (appropriate name, and combines rook+bishop+knight movement abilities). So maybe just "Amazon chess" would make sense.

The Amazon is used in the following variants (copied from the Wikipedia page above):

1. **Maharajah and the Sepoys**: Black has a complete army, and White only one piece: the maharajah (Amazon).
2. **Musketeer Chess**: A commercial variant, inspired from Seirawan Chess. This variant introduces 10 fairy pieces: archbishop, chancellor, hawk (different rules from Seirawan Chess), elephant (different rules from Seirawan Chess), leopard, cannon (different from Xiangqi), unicorn, fortress, spider, and amazon (also called dragon in this game). Players have a choice of 2 pieces among the 10 possible and method used to introduce them during the game.
3. **Wolf Chess**: On an 8×10 board, with fairy pieces wolf (empress), fox (princess), nightrider, sergeant (almost a Berolina pawn), and elephant (amazon). By Arno von Wilpert (1943).

There are also the following hybrid pieces:

1. Empress (rook+knight)
2. Princess (knight+bishop)
3. The traditional Queen (rook+bishop)
> 4 votes

# Answer
The Chess variants site has introduced tags recently and you can find some games with the tag Piece:Amazon. As of the day of writing this answer, the tagging is not yet comprehensive and a lot of games featuring the Amazon are still missed by this but I expect things to improve over time.

In addition, there is a list of games with the Amazon in the Piececlopedia entry Amazon on the same site.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, unorthodox-pieces, identify-this
---


# Question
Title: Karkops,M vs Dautov R. Is this a win really?
Karsten Müller analyses this position as win for black.

```
8/R4p2/6p1/4k2p/p6P/r5P1/5PK1/8 b - - 0 44

```

He thinks 44.. Kd5! is the only move to win. I tried to follow his suggestions whilst playing against Shredder to no avail.

1...Kd5 2.Kf1 Kc5 3.Ke2 Ra2+ 4.Kf3 f5 5.Ke3 Kb4 6.Rb7+ Kc3 7.Rc7+ Kb3 8.Rb7+ Kc2 9.Rc7+ Kd1 10.Rd7+ Ke1 11.f3 Rb2 12.Kf4 a3 13.Ra7 Rb3 14.g4 Rb4+ 15.Kg5 hxg4 16.Rxa3 g3 17.Ra2 Kf1 18.Kxg6

```
8/8/6K1/5p2/1r5P/5Pp1/R7/5k2 b - - 0 18

```

18..g2 19.Kxf5 g1=Q 20.Ra1+ Kg2 21.Rxg1+ Kxg1 22.h5 Kf2 23.h6 Rh4 24.Kg6 Kxf3 25.Kg7 Kf4 26.h7 Rg4+ 27.Kh8 Kf5

Is he wrong in stating this? Is his theory outdated?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Nevermind it looks like the correct continuation is

18.. f4 19.Kf5 g2

```
8/8/8/5K1P/1r3p2/5P2/R5p1/5k2 b - - 4 20

```

20.h5 g1=Q 21.Ra1+ Kg2 22.Rxg1+ Kxg1 23.h6 Kf2 24.h7 Rb8 25.Kxf4 Rh8 26.Kg5 Rxh7 27.f4 Rg7+ 28.Kf6 Rg4 29.f5 Kf3 30.Ke7 Re4+ 31.Kd6 Rf4 32.Ke6 Kg4 33.f6 Kg5 34.f7 Kg6 35.f8=N+ Rxf8 36.Ke5 Rf6 37.Ke4 Rf5 38.Ke3 Kg5 39.Ke4 Kg4 40.Ke3 Rf4 41.Ke2 Rf3 42.Kd2 Kf4 43.Kc2 Re3 44.Kd1 Kf3 45.Kd2 Kf2 46.Kd1 Re2 47.Kc1 Ke3 48.Kb1 Kd3 49.Kc1 Rh2 50.Kb1 Kc3 51.Ka1 Kb3 52.Kb1 Rh1#

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


# Question
Title: What to do when your opponent doesn't play along in the opening?
I looked around and could not find an answer for this.

I've studied a pretty good amount of opening theory and so I know the "correct" moves for some basic lines. Most e4 openings and a fair amount of Nimzo-Indian, Pirc, and QGD for D4.

The thing of it is, I often play opponents who have not studied these lines. So they play the "wrong" moves and I'm not sure how to proceed.

Is it best for me to stop and eat clock time figuring out why the wrong move is wrong? Or should I keep playing my same opening even though I might be putting myself deeper into a hole?

# Answer
Nothing is ever certain, but when you are in position that was played in thousand of high class games, any deviation is virtually always dubious move. On the other hand in position which was played in lets say just 10 high class games, novelty is still more probably to be dubious, but it is nowhere close to be certain. Also there can be more equally strong moves in later stages of a game then in very beginning when you run to fight for centre. Taking time with first new position is good thing to do. Compare move with your knowledge of other moves and try to build good plan. No reason to play autopilot in position you don't know. No two positions are really similar, today chess is pretty concrete.
> 8 votes

# Answer
It sounds like you're a beginner. As such, you should be focusing more on tactics than openings.

First, just because they play a move that's not in your book, doesn't mean it's "wrong". It may be an older line that's not in modern opening books, or just not in the books you have.

That being said, to answer your question, it depends on the opening. In a slow, closed or positional openings, it's not likely to matter too much, when your opponent deviates from your book, just adjust your plans as necessary. If it's a gambit, or tactical opening, you should take some time to check to see if it's a blunder.
> 18 votes

# Answer
> Is it best for me to stop and eat clock time figuring out why the wrong move is wrong?

No, you should learn before the match what the responses to deviations are. If you don't know why deviations are "wrong" and how to punish them, then you don't really know the opening.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Just a side note. Because your opponent makes a non book move does not mean it can be punished. This was a big realization for me because I always wanted to punish non book moves.

Especially, if you are playing Black. White has a wide range of moves to choose from. Some may give him a .25 advantage while another is only .10. It is clear that you cannot punish the .10 advantage. He still has a small advantage from having the first move.

My experience is that most non book moves are not totally wrong. So treat them with respect and simply try to find your best plan and best move. Stop trying to punish these moves because that is largely a waste of time. If they totally blunder that is another matter and easily dealt with.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Because it is a game and a contest/struggle. The opponent makes moves that are good for him not the moves in the favorite line you memorized.

Stop figuring out why his move is 'wrong' and figure out what your best move and plan is and then do that. Chances are that his move is quite good even if not the theoretical best.

You do not keep making your same memorized moves. You do not waste time figuring out why his move is wrong. You spend some time to figure out what is a good move for you.

Using principles and checking tactics is more useful than obsessing about book lines you think are 'correct'.

You have beginners syndrome. When you improve and gain experience these sorts of moves will not bother you.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Nothing. You stick to chess principles, and while you are learning openings you need to study why openings are played in a way they are, whats the idea behind the opening.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, tactics, opening-traps
---


# Question
Title: Will games be perfect, and most likely a draw, if both players get infinite time?
I have played a lot of chess games. The thing that always bothered me was that bloody clock. It looks as if the game is a game about who can think the fastest and it makes one nervous. Now, I know it's part of the game and this gives it charm too. But what if there was no pressure of time? Could a player win? Of course the opponent can do this too. Would this give the best games?

Suppose that both players have all the time they need and all means at their proposal, even the best chess computer in the world). Will some perfect play evolve? Would both players make the same moves (if in each others shoes)? Or is there always some guessing involved?

# Answer
> 7 votes
Computers don't need infinite time to play perfectly. Nearly but not quite. They need exponential time according to Fraenkel and Licthenstein (Journal of combinational theory).

Humans could theoretically achieve a similar result if they checked all positions and committed no errors in their calculations. Potentially having an extremely large number of boards where they could check the moves. However calculating a single move would take many generations of humans playing a single game.

On a practical level, if you are bothered about clocks and would like to go deeper in your calculations you should probably play correspondence chess. Most sites e.g. chess.com and lichess.org allow you to play in a format that allows you to think for a move for several days.

# Answer
> 2 votes
No, time is not everything. Memory is also important, for a brute force approach one has to memorise all the branchings and lines already read out.

Note also that solving chess is a problem of finite size, albeit the size is really huge. So you can do it in some finite time using some finite amount of memory, at least in theory. Solving chess is probably impossible in the real physical universe, good judgement in pruning the game tree becomes another requirement. Without good judgement, even infinite time will not help.

For a game between human players, limits can be lifted in several ways, correspondence chess does not only allow rather long time limits but also allows the use of any resource available to the player, including access to a library of chess books (extending memory in some way, as you can lookup opening lines) and computers (with their faster "thinking" they increase the time effectively, and they also provide additional memory).

---
Tags: theory, draw, time-control, time-management
---


# Question
Title: How do I get Stockfish to write its analysis to a file using a batch file on Windows?
I can get this to work in a Windows Command Prompt window as follows:

***stockfish\_14\_x64\_modern.exe
uci
ucinewgame
position fen rnb1kbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3q4/8/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
go depth 17
quit
***

If I put this into batch file and pipe the output to a log file, the log file contains output up to and including the ***uciok*** line. Note that the batch file is a single, long line. The parameters are not one-per-line.

# Answer
Assuming the question is about fixing the width formatting of the windows command window when copying text directly from that:

Have you tried : uci .... then when ready.

**setoption name Debug Log File type string default**

All subsequent commands should be executed, echoed in command window and the output file, as well as all output from SF.

It actually works, and I verified that the CRLF correspond to each SF output lines, not those of the DOS window maximal width.

"type string default"? need to carefully read the UCI protocol, excerpted here:

* setoption name \[value \] this is sent to the engine when the user wants to change the internal parameters of the engine. **For the "button" type no value is needed**. One string will be sent for each parameter and this will only be sent when the engine is waiting. The name of the option in should not be case sensitive and can include spaces like also the value. The substring "**value**" and "**name**" should be avoided in and to allow unambiguous parsing, for example do not use = "draw value".

In other words, after deduction and testing, write without the quotes (there to emphasize what is required in using the uci definition above)

**"Setoption name Debug Log File" "value" YouroutputFilepath**

YouroutputFilepath = typical windows path including filename. or just a file name for a file in your Stockfish executable folder.
> 1 votes

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


# Question
Title: How can I use JaVaFo in my pairing program?
JaVaFo is the official pairing engine for certifying implementations of the Dutch pairing algorithm for Swiss tournaments. When I look at FIDE's list of endorsed pairing programs I see that most of them use JaVaFo. How can I get this engine and use it in my own pairing program?

# Answer
According to the website for the engine it was written by international arbiter Roberto Ricco:

> **The author**
>
> JaVaFo is authored and intellectually owned by Roberto Ricca, former programmer, International Arbiter and current Secretary of the FIDE Commission “Systems of Pairings and Programs” (SPPC), formerly known as “Swiss Pairings Programs”.
>
> **The name**
>
> The name JaVaFo (pronounced yäväfö') comes from concatenating the first and the last letter of the author's three nephews, Johanna, Victoria and Francesco. Therefore, in its correct spelling, J, V, F are all capital letters. Of course, depending on the circumstances, also javafo or JAVAFO are proper spellings, but please never use Javafo, as J, V and F have all the same dignity.

JaVaFo is distributed as an executable java archive (jar) file and so the first step is to visit the Java Download site and download the Java runtime environment so you can run a Java Virtual Machine.

Next you can download the javafo.jar file from http://www.rrweb.org/javafo/current/javafo.jar.

Roberto Ricca has also written an Advanced User Manual which is also worth reading and which tells you exactly what functionality is available and how to invoke it.

Finally, Mark Jenkins has written some python scripts which give some concrete examples of invoking JaVaFo and which he has made available on Github.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Make a look at Schachturnierorganisationsprogramm (STOP) from the endorsed Programs! Schachturnierorganisationsprogramm is open source. So you can see the code and the program with using the pairingengine "JaVaFo"!!!
> 0 votes

---
Tags: fide, programming, swiss-pairing
---


title: Why is h4 much better than h3?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is h4 much better than h3?
```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
[Event "Rated Rapid game"]
[Date "2021.08.09"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "600+0"]
[ECO "A45"]
[Opening "Indian Defense"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. d4 Nf6 { A45 Indian Defense } 2. Bf4 g6 3. e3 Bg7 4. c3 d6 5. Bd3 Nc6 6. Nd2 e5 7. Bg5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Bg3 h5?! { (0.18 → 0.94) Inaccuracy. Be6 was best. } 10. h3?  (10. h4)

```

I (white) played a London system against a kings indian defense. After **10. h3?** the engine turns from 1.2 to -0.3. I get that it is better to force black with **10... g4** into a weird pawn structure but I don't see cleary what is that wrong with h3. Could somebody explain the evaluation of the engine?

# Answer
> 10 votes
> Why is h4 much better than h3?

It's very simple. The prospects for the bishop are much better on g3 than h2. On h2 the bishop does nothing useful and it will take a lot of moves to get it back into the game via g1. Black will exert iron control over f4 with pawns on e5 and g5 making the freeing move f2-f4 impossible.

On g3 the bishop has a role protecting the pawn on h4. Black will have to push the g pawn to g4 loosening control over f4 and giving white more targets. If the h2-b8 diagonal remains blocked then re-entry via f2 or e1 later on is much easier.

# Answer
> 7 votes
After 10.h4 g4, the kingside pawn structure is more favorable for White. Black's g- and h-pawns are blocked, they are too far advanced and feel more weak than strong. Black doesn't have possibilies for a kingside attack because of the blocked pawns. White's king will be safe on g1 after castling short. This is the most important factor. Far advanced pawns also often leave weak squares behind, this is the case here as well.

After 10.h3 h4 11.Bh2, Black has gained space on kingside and his g- and h-pawns are mobile. If White castles short, then Black can castle queenside and White's king is not safe since Black has ...g4 pawn breakthrough. Most likely ...g4 should be played already earlier. For example, 11...g4 12.hxg4 Nxg4 and White loses the bishop pair. The character of the position is much different than in the 10.h4 g4 variation.

---
Tags: positional-play, middlegame, evaluation, london-system
---


# Question
Title: Can a beginner's "opening repertoire" consist of only "opening principles"?
Let's say I play only e4/e5 (but this question might also come up on d4/d5). If I was a beginner - unaware of opening theory - but could count at least 3 moves ahead, could I survive (=not be lost at move 15) basically any type of opening by following only the basic "principles" ?

I am asking because if I wanted to teach somebody openings, I should obviously just first teach them principles, but what about these opening traps?

I cannot remember one off the top of my head, but I believe there are some openings which look okay, but it turns out there is a forced loss after 10 moves.

# Answer
> I am asking because if I wanted to teach somebody openings, I should obviously just first teach them principles, but what about these opening traps?

Exactly. There are many opening traps and if you don't know them they are very easy to fall into. For instance it is easy for a beginner playing the Ruy Lopez to fall for a trap which is so old it is called the "Noah's Ark" trap:

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. d4  b5 6. Bb3 Nxd4 7. Nxd4 exd4 8. Qxd4?? c5 9. Qd5 Be6 10. Qc6+ Bd7 11. Qd5 c4

```

You either learn this stuff or risk becoming a victim.
> 7 votes

# Answer
In my first 10 years of playing chess I never studied openings. I studied middle game, positional play, and endings. Falling for traps is a great way to learn about them, very memorable. I did play through many master games and so had a feel of openings from that.

Against strong opposition I often ended up in cramped positions struggling for activity out of the opening. I enjoyed these positions. Korchnoi was my hero :)

Eventually I didn't like those positions and then I learned openings.

I have no regrets.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Sometimes violating opening principles is one's best way of playing for an advantage. Even if you are not the one playing for advantage, opponent might be.

The first opening that comes to mind is the Two Knights Defense:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 {Black's played completely according to principles so far - "develop knights before bishops", etc.} 4. Ng5!? {This is White's best way of playing for an advantage, but it violates the opening principle of not moving the same piece twice.} d5 {It's either this or 4...Bc5 giving up the f7-pawn, which is an even riskier move.} 5. exd5 Nxd5?! {This move is known to be dubious, but the main line 5...Na5 is effectively a pawn sacrifice.} 6. d4

```

With a powerful initiative. White doesn't have a forced win, but has open lines and is ready to castle, with threats such as Qf3 hitting both the d5-knight and f7-pawn.

A different line of the Giuoco Piano comes to mind as well.

```
[FEN ""]
  1. e4             e5
  2. Nf3            Nc6
  3. Bc4            Bc5
  4. c3             Nf6
  5. d4             exd4
  6. e5

```

Black's best move is 6...d5 (the alternatives are nearly losing), which is not an obvious move and not something that you can find knowing only opening principles.
> 2 votes

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


title: Detailed Stockfish Evaluation Function

text:
# Question
Title: Detailed Stockfish Evaluation Function
Stockfish contains the nice 'eval' command that prints out the detailed score of its static evaluation function. It regards Mobility, Material, Bishop, Rooks, etc. However, I was wondering if there was any possibility to get even more detailed scores, like, for example the ones provided at https://hxim.github.io/Stockfish-Evaluation-Guide/

Ideally, I am looking for a tool that takes as input an epd string and returns the evaluation scores for all the subterms listed in the above page (there should be about 100 of them).

# Answer
I'm afraid you'll need to do it yourself or pay someone to do it. I'm not aware there is any free download for you. Not super challenging but tedious.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: Definition of "theoretical" in chess context
I am a novice who has only picked up my first chess book recently. I want to study some common opening positions, and pick a line to go with & practice for the time being.

While investigating the Sicilian Defense, I notices that many line of the Najdorf system are labeled *positional* or *theoretical*. O think I am starting to understand what entails *positional*, but I still don't get what is meant by *theoretical*.

What would *theoretical* mean, in this context?

# Answer
In the Najdorf, there are some lines that need absolute precision. If one side does not know the "theoretical" move and plays something else, then they will most likely end up losing. Probably this was meant by "theoretical" lines.

On the other hand, there are some lines that do not need absolute precision. You have more choices on moves. Although they may not be "the best move", they will not make you lose the game immiedately. You will need to have a good plan to make them work. Probably these lines are "positional" ones.

If you are not a very high rated player, I would suggest focus more on positional lines if possible and try to understand the ideas rather than memorizing moves. Because probably you will not get opponents that play very deep theory in your level.
> 18 votes

# Answer
> What would *theoretical* mean, in this context?

It basically means that in this line you will live or die by the sword. It means that there has been a lot of analysis, mostly done by computer engines. This means that in a lot of the positions the correct move is not obvious. If you don't know the "theory", the analysis, and your opponent does then you will lose.
> 19 votes

---
Tags: theory, terminology
---


title: The fastest dualed mates in n

text:
# Question
Title: The fastest dualed mates in n
Hauke Reddmann asked a cool question about the quickest dual-free mates in n's from the starting position. But this is a rather limited scope. I wish to attack this idea from a different angle. What are the quickest *dualed* mates in n from the starting position?

# Answer
I have done some initial research. This answer is available to edit for any who wishes to do improve the current standings. The shortest sequence for each mate in n is recorded by the number of plies needed to reach it. I have used Lichess's and chess.com's opening analyzer's to aid me. The symbol #n will used to signify the relevant mate in n, and they will go in a descending order.

#1: 3 Plies

```
[FEN ""]

1. f3 e6 2. g4 Qh4#

```

#2: 3 plies

```
[FEN ""]

1. f3 e6 2. h3 Qh4+ 3. g3 Qxg3#

```

#3: 5 plies

```
[FEN ""]

1. f4 e6 2. Nf3 Be7 3. h3 Bh4+ 4. Nxh4 Qxh4+ 5. g3 Qxg3#

```

#4: 5 plies

```
[FEN ""]

1. d3 e6 2. Kd2 Bd6 3. Ke3 Qg5+ 4. Ke4 Qe5+ 5. Kf3 Qf5+ 6. Ke3 Qf4#

```

#5: 5 plies

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. h3 Qh4+ 4. g3 Qxg3+ 5. Ke2 Qf2+ 6. Kd3 Qd4+ 7. Ke2 Qxe4#

```

#6: 5 plies

```
[FEN ""]

1. f4 e5 2. Kf2 exf4 3. h3 Qh4+ 4. Kf3 Qg3+ 5. Ke4 d5+ 6. Kxd5 Be6+ 7. Ke4 Nf6+ 8. Ke5 Nc6#

```

#7: 6 plies

```
[FEN ""]

1. e3 e5 2. Bc4 Ke7 3. Qh5 Kf6 4. Qxf7+ Kg5 5. g4 g6 6. h4+ Kh6 7. g5+ Qxg5 8. hxg5+ Kxg5 9. Nf3+ Kg4 10. Rh4#

```

#8: 6 plies

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 e5 2. Kd2 Bb4+ 3. Ke3 Qg5+ 4. Kd3 e4+ 5. Kc4 b5+ 6. Kxb4 a5+ 7. Kc3 b4+ 8. Kb3 a4+ 9. Kc4 Ba6+ 10. Kxb4 Nc6+ 11. Ka3 Qe7+ 12. b4 Qxb4#

```

#9: 8 plies

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 d5 2. Qf3 d4 3. Nc3 Kd7 4. Bc4 Kc6 5. e5+ Kd7 6. Qd5+ Ke8 7. Qxf7+ Kd7 8. e6+ Kc6 9. Qf3+ Kb6 10. Na4+ Ka5 11. b4+ Kxb4 12. Qb3+ Ka5 13. Qb5#

```

#10: 5 plies

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 e5 2. Kd2 Bb4+ 3. Ke3 Qg5+ 4. Kd3 e4+ 5. Kc4 b5+ 6. Kxb4 a5+ 7. Kc3 b4+ 8. Kb3 a4+ 9. Kc4 Ba6+ 10. Kxb4 Nc6+ 11. Ka3 Qe7+ 12. b4 Qxb4#

```

#11: ?

#12: ?

#13: ?

#14: ?

#15: 8 Plies

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 e5 2. Qd3 Ke7 3. Bg5+ Kd6 4. Bxd8 Nf6 5. Nf3 b6 6. Qb5 c5 7. dxc5+ Ke6 8. Ng5+ Kf5 9. Qd3+ e4 10. Nxe4 Ke5 11. Nxf6 Bb7 12. g3 g5 13. f4+ gxf4 14. Bh3 fxg3 15. Qc3+ Kf4 16. Qxg3#

```

#16: ?

#17: 8 plies

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 d6 2. c3 Kd7 3. Qa4+ Ke6 4. Bc4+ Ke5 5. d4+ Kf6 6. e5+ dxe5 7. dxe5+ Kg6 8. Nf3 h6 9. Nh4+ Kh7 10. Qc2+ g6 11. Bxf7 Qd1+ 12. Kxd1 Bg4+ 13. f3 Bh5 14. Bxg6+ Kg7 15. Qf5 Nf6 16. exf6+ exf6 17. Qxh5 Be7 18. Nf5+ Kf8 19. Bxh6+ Rxh6 20. Qxh6+ Kg8 21. Nxe7#

```

#18: 10 plies

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 e5 2. Qd3 Ke7 3. Bg5+ Kd6 4. Bxd8 Nf6 5. dxe5+ Ke6 6. Qh3+ Kd5 7. Nc3+ Kc6 8. Qd3 b6 9. Qf3+ d5 10. exd6+ Kd7 11. dxc7 Nc6 12. O-O-O+ Bd6 13. Bxf6 a6 14.Qf4 Kxc7 15. Rxd6 Rb8 16. Nd5+ Kb7 17. Rxc6 Ka8 18. Nxb6+ Rxb6 19. Rxb6 Bb7 20. Qc7 Rb8 21. Bd4 Ka7 22. Rxa6+ Kxa6 23. e3#

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: problems, checkmate, records
---


# Question
Title: What is the the idea behind this popular double pawn sacrifice line In the Evans Gambit?
I am learning a bit of Evans Gambit theory lately, and when exploring a Master level games database, I have found this surprising line.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O

```

After it concludes, Black doesn't take the free pawn on c3 that allows them to be it to be two pawns up after White retakes. Why does White allow Black to take another pawn, and why does Black reject it?

# Answer
The problem with 7... dxc3 is that White quickly regains both pawns.

```
r1bqk1nr/pppp1ppp/2n5/2b5/2BpP3/2P2N2/P4PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b KQkq - 1 7
[StartFlipped "0"]

7... dxc3 8. Bxf7 Kxf7 9. Qd5 Kf8 10. Qxc5 d6 11. Qxc3 {+/- Sokolsky, ECO C}

```
> 20 votes

# Answer
Fischer played a famous miniature in this line against Ruben Fine and published his analysis in "My 60 Memorable Games." Basically white gets a huge attack in this line and black's best shot is to give back all the pawns and pray for equality. I've included my analysis on this game in this lichess study.

The actual (skittles, but still instructive) game was:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O dxc3?! 8. Qb3 Qe7? 9. Nxc3 Nf6?? 10. Nd5! Nxd5 11. exd5 Ne5 12. Nxe5 Qxe5 13. Bb2 Qg5 14. h4! Qxh4 15. Bxg7 Rg8 16. Rfe1+! Kd8 17. Qg3! 1-0

```
> 12 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, pawns, sacrifice, evans-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Tiniest readable board and pieces design
Has anyone developed a graphic design format for representing boards within a very tiny amount of space? I'm thinking along the lines of how sparklines were developed to allow a line chart to be embedded within a paragraph.

Is there some kind of equivalent for chess, that would allow a full board to be read at very low scales? This might be useful for analysis discussion, instead of requiring the reader to read sequences of moves in algebraic format and picture the resulting position.

As an example, here is something I have come up with (just an example work in progress).

Is there something better out there?

# Answer
Well, the minimum recognizable size could be 3x3 for each figurine (+1 as field separator if you are spendable) thus you could even fit it in the classical 32x32 icon format. (The pics at the bottom are actually 30x30 sized figurines!) Recognizable, though, without the incessant aliasing:  As the German says: As you see, you don't see anything.

Figurine design is critical: in your example, I would immediate cry out "King and Queen are placed wrong"! Here is my design:
> 5 votes

# Answer
I don't think anything specific like Sparklines has been developed but using Latex you have a lot of flexibility.

For example using the Skak package for Latex you can remove/add notation from the board and Latex allows you to control the size of the diagram.
> 2 votes

# Answer
In addition to 'raw' size, you need to add legibility as well as readability issues. It's no use to have a minimalist design, if the user a) can't see what it says (or is a microscope expected), or b) can't interpret the symbols he/she sees (are they too artistic or too far out?).

The first possible typeface that comes to mind is Adobe Cheq -- it is not perfect as it has some details that may cause problems (such as the curved bases of the pieces, the very curvy knights, and the very narrow 'holes' in the black King).

Linares is a slightly less useful typeface: it is open, but it has a lot of small details

If you are thinking of designing a typeface:

The production mechanics enter into the question. Are you dealing with pixels or lead? Will those pixels stay as they are, or will any kind of scaling get applied, affecting legibility? If print, what quality paper are you using, and what line resolution does it have? If you try to print higher resolution, you're likely to see that details get lost or artifacts (such as doglegs) get introduced. Additionally, contrast between glyph foreground and glyph background if any is important: I currently see lots of old typefaces where white Bishop on black square are almost illegible due to lack of such contrast.

There's a lot of work down on typefaces for newspaper printing: these must work on newsprint paper (so no tiny details), and they need to print clearly at high printing speed (so they need a fair amount of background white 'inside' to separate details.) Bitstream Oranda is a fairly well known example: very 'light', very 'open', and rather robust. Cheq tends in this direction.

You may also want to consider sign typeface design: they typically emphasis very high legibility and clear 'differences' between characters such as S/8/5 and 1/l/I. The one I know best is SISPOS by Bo Berndal; there's a wiki page for 'list of public sigage typefaces' for additional inspiration.

Typefaces intended for low-resolution use, such as Lucida Fax are often useful for this type of use, as are optically 'small sizes' (6pt and less) of digital typefaces.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, books, websites, chessboards, recommendations
---


# Question
Title: What factors make the Nimzowitsch Defense inferior to other 1.e4 defenses?
I was analyzing variations after `1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5` the other day. All of the following lines seem to score well for Black and lead to pretty comfortable positions:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 (3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nf3 (4. Be3 e5 )4... Bg4 5. Be2 O-O-O 6. Nc3 Qa5 )3... Bf5 4. c3 f6 5. f4 (5. Nf3 fxe5 6. dxe5 e6 7. Bb5 Bc5 8. O-O Ne7 )5... Nh6 6. Nf3 e6 7. Bd3 Be7 8. O-O O-O (8... Qd7) 9. h3 Qe8 *

```

You could argue that, in the mainline above, Black's knight is misplaced because it isn't really targeting anything and it's blocking his c-pawn, which is a nuisance because c5 is Black's main pawn break in the French pawn structure. But on the flipside, he's managed to develop his light-squared bishop outside the pawn chain, and he still has the f6 break at his disposal. So if you compare this to the French, as far as I can see it's just a matter of "bad knight" vs "bad bishop"; I don't see why one opening should necessarily be considered better than the other.

So, what are the reasons that `1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5` is considered a second-rate defense and not used at the top level?

# Answer
The f-file is open for white and the rook can be strong if the knight moves away from f3. The f4-f5 and c4 pawn break will eventually occur too.

Meanwhile, in the French defense for example, and I will refer to the Advance variation, black has potential threats against the e4 square after Qb6 and can create some problems for those unfamiliar with it.

The Caro-Kann I do not recommend as much because there is exchange variation and the Panov, but otherwise the Advance Variation is one of the hardest (arguably) openings to play.

Pirc is not as good for those who want space because with e4 d4 c4 the pawns take the centre and Nc3 ideas can occur with f3, Nh3 Nf2 and a kingside pawn storm after white castles queenside and commits himself with Be3 and Qd2 to trade bishops on h6.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Who was the quickest from "unrated" to GM?
What player attained the GM title in the shortest amount of time, beginning from their entry into organized (rated) chess, to the award of the title (either via attaining norms, or by direct award)? I would imagine that this player would probably also be in contention for "youngest to attain GM title", but I know this doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

(For purposes of this question, when I refer to "organized chess", I generally mean competition in an event rated and sanctioned by FIDE, or sanctioned by a national sanctioning body recognized by FIDE (whether that play is rated by FIDE or not)).

# Answer
> 5 votes
# 0 days.

There are 28 players who achieved the grandmaster title immediately:

```
 1            Fischer, Robert James
 2            Spassky, Boris V.
 3            Korchnoi, Viktor
 4            Larsen, Bent
 5            Petrosian, Tigran
 5=           Polugaevsky, Lev
 7            Portisch, Lajos
 7=         Botvinnik, Mikhail
 9            Smyslov, Vassily
 9=           Tal, Mikhail N.
11            Geller, Efim P.
11=           Keres, Paul
13            Hort, Vlastimil
13=           Stein, Leonid
15            Taimanov, Mark E.
15=           Gligoric, Svetozar
17            Huebner, Robert
17=           Bronstein, David I.
19            Gipslis, Aivars
20            Krogius, Nikolai V.
21            Panno, Oscar
22            Uhlmann, Wolfgang
23           Olafsson, Fridrik
24            Balashov, Yuri S.
25            Savon, Vladimir A.
26            Vasiukov, Evgeni
27           Tukmakov, Vladimir B.
28           Boleslavsky, Isaak

```

When FIDE first published their rating lists, these were the grandmasters who were deemed such by FIDE. Therefore, it took them zero days to become a grandmaster.

(Source: http://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/Elo196900e.html)

# Answer
> 4 votes
While various chess rating systems have been used since the 20th century, with the most impactful being the FIDE rating established in 1970, it seems to have no consequences for this question. This is because the list of "quickest to become GM" will indeed closely, if not entirely, coincide with the list of "youngest GMs".

One reason is that with people in the past it is often quite hard to ascertain when they started playing organized chess. Another reason is that requirements for the title of Grandmaster are arguably getting less hard over time and the practice of establishing GM tournaments with the aim of facilitating fulfillment of GM norms is not entirely uncommon.

Therefore the list of youngest grandmasters and list of grandmasters under 15 is the place to go, with maybe even Fischer in the "pre-GM-norm-hunt" era being among the candidates for primacy; nowadays children prodigies play competitive chess since as early as 7 or 8. Fischer joined the Manhattan Chess Club at the age of 12, although he played at least children's tournaments since 1952.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The youngest GM in history is Abimanyu Mishra at roughly 12 years of age. If we are counting age here is is the person. If there were not COVID there would have been OTB games and an even more likely chance to get a norm faster. He got his final two in the space of a couple of months.

---
Tags: history, grandmaster, records, titles
---


title: How do computers end up blundering?

text:
# Question
Title: How do computers end up blundering?
I’m trying some practice games against Stockfish level eight. I always lose but sometimes Stockfish makes obviously bad moves and I get ahead. Here for example, Stockfish makes an inaccuracy followed by what seems to be an obvious blunder. I believe Stockfish level 8 is supposed to be ~2500 level, but I think a computer would avoid basic blunders. What causes such a misevaluation?

# Answer
It must have been a bug. Lichess's Stockfish 8 has the following internal settings:

* Skill level 20/20
* Depth up to 22
* Think up to 1000ms

I got the following information from the source code in Fishnet. Not sure how strong it is but definitely not a level that would drop a knight like this.
> 2 votes

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


title: The quickest selfmate in 2

text:
# Question
Title: The quickest selfmate in 2
Duh.

Clearly, the one shown there with Qxh5+ Rxh5# can be easily turned into a s#2, by e.g. B-e2-f3, Qe2 from White and c6, Q-a5xd2-d1 from Black. 9.0 moves if I added correctly. Someone care to beat this, or even construct a helpgame-s#3? (This might be *far* trickier than a #n counterpart!)

Addendum: This example doesn't work as the Black queen vacates d8 for the Black king.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I care to do it in 7.0 moves.

```
[FEN ""]

1. f4 e5 2. Kf2 Ke7 3. Kg3 Kf6 4. Kh4 Kf5+ 5. Kh5 e4 6. e3 d5 7. h4 Qe7 8. Qg4+ Kf6 9. Qg6+ fxg6#

```

---
Tags: problems, records, selfmate
---


# Question
Title: Why is this seemingly quiet and normal position actually -3?
```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 1
[Event "Casual Blitz game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/GETmjlLj"]
[Date "2021.08.15"]
[White "WMArsyHuda"]
[Black "sicariusnoctis"]
[Result "0-1"]
[UTCDate "2021.08.15"]
[UTCTime "08:40:28"]
[WhiteElo "1622"]
[BlackElo "1874"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "180+2"]
[ECO "B30"]
[Opening "Sicilian Defense: Old Sicilian"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]
[StartPly "33"]

1... c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 { B30 Sicilian Defense: Old Sicilian } 3. Bc4 e6 4. O-O d5 5. exd5 exd5 6. Be2 Nf6 7. d3 Bd6 8. c4 O-O 9. Nc3 d4 10. Ne4 Be7 11. Nfd2 Ne5 12. Nb3 b6 13. a4 a5 14. Bf4 Ng6 15. Bg5 Nxe4 16. Bxe7 Qxe7 17. dxe4 { Stockfish evaluation: -3. }

```

**Analysis board.**

---

Various positional factors include:

* Black's space advantage.
* Black's protected passed d pawn.
* White's knight has no forward moves.
* White cannot open up the queenside.
* Black's sole weakness on b6 is difficult to target.
* Black has ideas such as f5 and Bb7 to target e4.
* After black opens up the f file, the natural f4 by white is discouraged due to Nxf4.

Factors like these seem solvable (at a minor cost). Indeed, it seems like white can reroute the knight via Nd2, stop Nf4 via g3, and at worst, cover the resulting light-square weaknesses via Bf3-Bg2. Black doesn't have any immediate attack, and apart from his pawn on d4, none of his pieces are encroaching upon white's territory. Optimistically, the d5 square might even be a future outpost. Personally, I would have given such a position a "-1" -- i.e., a slight advantage for black.

What makes this quiet position so positionally dominating for black? How does the accumulation of minor positional advantages make such a large difference here?

# Answer
You mentioned seven points which give Black an advantage. Here are two more:

* White has a bad bishop, blocked by its own pawns on c4 and e4. Conversely, Black's bishop is good.
* Black is more ready for kingside play than White. Black is already to move, and his pieces can jump into kingside action faster than White's. For starters, 17...Bb7 connects the rooks with tempo.

Here's a sample line:

```
[fen "r1b2rk1/4qppp/1p4n1/p1p5/P1PpP3/1N6/1P2BPPP/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 17"]

1...Bb7 {Black threatens 18...Bxe4 (17...Qxe4? 18.Bf3 results in a skewer). If White allows this, he will be down a pawn, in addition to all the other positional factors.} 2. f3 {This attempt to hold on to material equality does not work, as we will see.} Rae8 {Threatening ...f5, opening lines and making use of Black's superior development (for exf5 see the main line).} 3. Bd3 f5 4. exf5 Nf4 {Threatening ...Qe3+ forking the bishop on d3} 5. Rf2 Qg5 {Now it's ...Nh3+ forking the king and the rook on f2.} 6. Kh1 Re3 {Threatening ...Nxe3. White also needs to keep an eye on shots such as ...Nxg2 Rxg2 Rxf3, with Rf1# ideas if the g2-rook moves.}

```

It should be obvious that White is in hot water. You write that optimistically the d5-square might even turn into an outpost; as this line shows, Black's position is simply too dynamic, and White will need Black to misplay to even be able to think about subtle positional goals like this.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Stepping through the analysis, there are large swings in favour of black on most turns where the white knight on e4 is only protected by the pawn on d3. I'm guessing that Stockfish really likes the passed pawn on the d file.

After the white knight goes to d4 on move 10, Stockfish only thinks that white is okay after its move on move 11 (after the other knight moves to d2 and becomes a second defender of the knight on e4) and on move 14 (when there's a chance to pick up black's undefended knight on e5 in exchange for the knight on e4). As long as white can keep material even without allowing a passed pawn, Stockfish thinks it's okay. On every turn where allowing a passed pawn is the only way to keep material even, Stockfish thinks it's bad for white.

I'm no expert, but that's my guess.

Edit: I'm not sure how to include Stockfish scores in board notation here, so here's a picture.

Starting on move 10, Stockfish says that ...Nxe4 is the only dominating move for black, and it is a dominating move only when dxe4 (giving black a passed pawn) is the only way to for white to equalize material.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Black is simply better, a pawn up and good pieces.

> What makes this quiet position so positionally dominating for black? How does the accumulation of minor positional advantages make such a large difference here?

I think you've committed a common mistake. You've assumed Stockfish evaluation score has anything to do with human evaluations. No, there isn't any direct connection. I could simply scale the scores by a factor of 10, but the engine would still play the same move. The recent introduction of neural network is making the situation even worse.

Trying to break down Stockfish's evaluation on the absolute terms like what you're doing now is ineffective. The scores are here simply to guide Stockfish what to play next.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: middlegame, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: How do I convert a move from coordinate notation to algebraic notation?
The following Python code gives the best move in coordinate notation:

```
import chess
import chess.engine
sfEngineTxt = "E:\Chess\Stockfish\stockfish_14_x64_modern"
sfEngine = chess.engine.SimpleEngine.popen_uci(sfEngineTxt)
sfInfo = sfEngine.analyse(chess.Board(), chess.engine.Limit(depth=11), info=chess.engine.INFO_ALL)
moveArray = sfInfo['pv']
moveTxt1 = str(moveArray[0])
print(moveTxt1)
sfEngine.quit()

```

This outputs **e2e4**. What I want is **e4**, I.e. algebraic notation or san notation.

# Answer
There is `Board.san()` which gives you the algebraic notation. You can check the docs here.

You will need a Board object for it.

```
import chess

board = chess.Board()
move = chess.Move.from_uci("e2e4")
print(board.san(move))
# Output: e4

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, notation, python
---


# Question
Title: akiba rubinstein vs alexander alekhine 1911 rook endgame: the mistake here is Rxb5 right?
Current 4 follow-up questions for the answer (currently just 1 answer):

A - engine says Kf5 is a blunder. Did you mean Kf6?

B - engine says Kf5 Re7 is a blunder. Did you mean Kf5 Rd7? Kf5 Re7 blunders into king and rook mate with Kf6 next?

C - after Kf6 (instead of Kf5), white must not play a rook move right? after Kf6 any rook move leads to rook being captured or an actual king and rook mate right?

D - 'BTW I just autoplayed the position after Ke6, and White doesn't make any progress at all' --\> aha! so Ke6 is actually a draw?

---

Click here for engine re position below

```
8/p2k4/1p4p1/1P1p2K1/3P1P2/R3P3/8/1r6 b - - 0 1

```

The way it's described by hanging pawns in A Rook Endgame Lesson with Akiba Rubinstein at 29:09 (the game is discussed from 22:48 until 31:21) makes me think it's some ordinary expected move while alekhine is already losing. but according to engine: there is a good move (or at least a better move), and the only good move here is Ke6. but then the evaluation goes from **0.6 to 3.2** for Rxb5.

the way this game is being described sounds as if alekhine's been doomed from the start of the endgame and didn't have any chances of winning or drawing in between and then it's just a matter of rubinstein to convert the win and it's like rubinstein does this perfectly. but it seems like there could've been some chance for Ke6 instead of Rxb5.

What's going on?

Similar question: Ulf Andersson vs Robert Huebner 1981 rook endgame: the mistake here is Rd8 right?

# Answer
> 3 votes
I'd prefer if you formulate your question clearly as "Is Rxb5 losing? Is Ke6 instead drawing?" but anyway.

"Activity is key factor in rook endgames"\[tm\].

After Rxb5, the f passer is simply too strong. It merely takes some precision (Rc7! at the end) to walk the point home, and Rubinstein was an endgame god anyway. After 1...Ke6 2.Rxa7 Rg1+ 3.Kh6 Kf5 4.Re7 Rg3, the black king will break through to the white pawn center as soon as White tries to net Pg6, which will cost him Pe3 and Pd4. His king is off on the h-line too...

```
[[FEN 8/8/1p4R1/1P1p2K1/3k1P2/7r/8/8]]

```

This would be a near-lying key position in the line described. Syzygy confirms Rxb6 only draws. This does not say 1...Ke6 holds the draw (White can e.g. try 5.Re5+ and gobble Pd5...only after some Kh7, though) but I think I had tried this too (in my best years).

---
Tags: endgame, rooks, rook-endgame, alekhine, akiba-rubinstein
---


title: Patterns in Chess960 positions

text:
# Question
Title: Patterns in Chess960 positions
I have two questions.

1. Where can I find more studies like this Lichess one, please? I got it from this answer elsewhere on this site.

The Lichess study is talking about this position

```
[White "White"]
[Black "Black"]
[Result ""]
[FEN "nqbrkbrn/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/NQBRKBRN w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

and proceeds to give some good (not necessarily the best) opening moves, in re a recurring theme or 'motive' in 960 starting positions where a rook is hanging.

Chapter 1

```
[White "White"]
[Black "Black"]
[Result ""]
[FEN "nqbrkbrn/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/NQBRKBRN w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. c3! { After 1.c3 Black has only 1..Ng6 or 1..g6. The latter leaves the knight in the corner, as we will see. } { [%csl Gg8][%cal Gb1h7] } 1... g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. e4 c5 4. Ng3 cxd4 5. cxd4 O-O 6. d5 { ...and Black is cramped. } *

```

Chapter 2

```
[White "White"]
[Black "Black"]
[Result ""]
[FEN "nqbrkbrn/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/NQBRKBRN w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. c3 Ng6 { Best move. This means, start position #310 requires forced moves to make it playable for Black. } 2. h4 h5 3. d4 c6 4. Ng3 e5 5. Bg5 Be7 6. Bxe7 Nxe7 { Black has solved all initial problems. However, any other moves will lead to problematic positions or loss of material. } *

```

Chapter 3

```
[White "White"]
[Black "Black"]
[Result ""]
[FEN "nqbrkbrn/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/NQBRKBRN w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. c4 c5 2. Qxh7 Ng6 3. Qxg8 Qxh2 4. Ng3 Qxg1 5. Nh5 { A mate threat is the best way to stop mirrored moves. } 5... Nh4?? (5... d6 6. d4 { White gets two pawns (f7,g7) so he can afford to sac one in the middle for continued attack on the king. Black might still try to return the threat: } 6... Nh4 7. Nxg7+ Kd7 8. Nh5 { This blocks the mirrored threat---the queen defends g2---so Black better frees the queen and sets up a discovery on the knight. } 8... Qh2 9. Qxf7 Nxg2+ 10. Bxg2 Qxg2 11. Ng3 $16 { White's king has no problems, contrary to Black's, and is one pawn up. }) 6. Nxg7# *

```

Of course, the point of Chess960 is to not study openings. But at least there are some patterns to be recognised. So, while this question is, by the letter, about openings, hopefully, it is, in spirit, recognizing patterns (in openings/starting positions) and therefore much more akin to tactics and endgames.

2. Are there any 'puzzle' sites/engines/programs/programs/what you call it or books for Chess960 openings, such as determining the best, or any good, opening moves?

Off the top of my head, what anyone could just do is: generate a starting position, make a guess for White, and let the computer tell you the answer. Repeat for Black. Or you could make any move for White and then think of what to do for Black.

However,

* 2.1. in generating a starting position, what I'm hoping for in this standard position is something similar to the one in question (1) - that there's some kind of theme/'motive' like hanging rook. I mean, in the standard setup, which is very symmetric and has queens and bishops near the centre, there's not really any theme/'motive' here, so there's not really quite a simple way to come up with saying 1.d4 or 1.e4 are the best (or at least good) moves and (insert so and so) are the best (or at least good) responses.
* 2.2. this would be just for the 1st move or 2. I'm hoping for situations where the game is already a few moves (maybe 4 or less) into the opening and then players consider what moves to make
* 2.3. in (2.1) and (2.2), there aren't necessarily unique answers because the moves wouldn't necessarily be mistakes. Puzzles (like for tactics and endgames) often involve situations where the opposing side has just made a mistake and then it's up to the player to capitalise (and even then the solutions aren't necessarily unique!). I don't necessarily think computers can come up 'good-(bad moves)', so I figure this is where humans would come in. Maybe there are some sites or books that show traps that occur within only 4 moves, such as (possible generalisations of the) Costage Trap.
* (P.S. If this exists or will exist, then THANK GOD for whenever this happens. Finally, a way to learn openings from puzzles, at least for standard chess players! I remember one of my chess mentors before said that while you can learn tactics and endgames from puzzles \[but not only from puzzles of course\], for openings it's like 'that's the time you have to start consulting books.')

# Answer
> Are there any ... books for Chess960 openings

Yes. Amazon has the Kindle edition of *960 Stems: A Complete Guide To Chess 960 Openings* by *Ray Charles Gordon*. Understandably there is no tree-based edition as it is a (not surprisingly) 2865 pages.

According to the blurb:

> 960 Stems is Ray Charles Gordon's landmark, single-volume opening reference for Chess 960. It is the product of six straight months of engine exploration of all 960 positions, with one position on each page

Helpfully it has the "Look inside" feature so you can get an idea if it is what you want.
> 2 votes

# Answer
See the very beginning of *The Ascent - Wesley So's Fischer Random Strategies and Tactics*. Wesley So talks about undefended/underdefended pawns, undeveloped/underdeveloped/hard to develop pieces, etc. It's not free, but I believe the free preview they have includes the aforementioned/preceding(/grammar?) beginning part.

Wish lichess or chessvariants or somewhere else had chess960 opening puzzles that were given to you based on your rating... (as opposed to a collection/s of arbitrary puzzles without a similar measure of difficulty eg opening puzzles in blog 'Chess960 Jungle')
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, chess-variants, chess960, reference-request
---


# Question
Title: Ulf Andersson vs Robert Huebner 1981 rook endgame: the mistake here is Rd8 right?
Click here for engine re position below

```
8/3r4/1kp2p1p/ppRp2pP/3PP1P1/3K1P2/PP6/8 w - - 0 1

```

From hanging pawns in The Principle of Two Weaknesses in the Endgame at 9:02 (the game is discussed from 0:00 until 12:20).

The way Rd8 is described makes me think Rd8 is some natural defensive move in a rook endgame that is already winning for white.

But according to engine:

1. The position is actually about drawish after a3 (eval 0.2)
2. But the next move is critical: It seems that the only move that holds the draw is a4 (eval 0.1 or 0.2).
3. Meanwhile, the evaluation goes from **0.2 to 3.4 for (a3 and then) Rd8**.

Thus, it seems like Rd8 cost black a drawn game rather than that Black didn't really have that much chance to draw(/win) from the start (of the endgame in the video).

What's going on?

Similar question: akiba rubinstein vs alexander alekhine 1911 rook endgame: the mistake here is Rxb5 right?

# Answer
The mystery is easily solved if you just follow a few alternatives with the engine. The point is simply that if White comes to b4, the Rc5 gets another protection. This means that after exd5 Rxd5, White can march on with Ke4 as c5 is no longer hanging, and his activity wins in the long end (autoplay again). And cxd5 instead will immediately lead to zugzwang, and dxe4 is obviously (?) bad in any case. Thus not Rd8 is the cause of (probable) loss, but not blocking b4 in time.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: endgame, rooks, rook-endgame, robert-hubner, ulf-andersson
---


# Question
Title: What are key squares and critical squares?
What is the best definition of key squares in king and pawn vs king endgame theory? Please provide graphics if possible. Is there a difference between "key squares" and "critical squares," or are these terms interchangeable?

# Answer
The terms *key squares* and *critical squares* are sometimes used interchangeably in chess literature in king vs king and pawn endgames.

> **A square is called a *key square* when the occupation of it by the attacking king will secure a win regardless of which side is to move.**

## 2nd through 4th Ranks

In this example, the key squares for the White pawn are e6, f6, and g6.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/5P2/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

## A Pawn that Crosses the 5th Rank has More Key Squares

In this example, the pawn on f5 has two sets of key squares: e6, f6, and g6, as well as e7, f7, and g7. If White's king can occupy any of those 6 squares, they can secure the win.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/5P2/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

## The Rooks Pawn are Exceptions

These positions show a draw regardless of which side has the move.

```
[FEN "5k1K/8/7P/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

---

```
[FEN "7k/8/7K/7P/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

In the first position, Black can simply shuffle his king between f7 and f8 and White makes no progress. In the second position, the move sequences 1. Kg6 Kg8 2. h6 K8 3. h7 stalemate. The sequence 1... Kg8 \`. Kg6 Kh8 3. h6 Kg8 4. h7+ Kh8 with a stalemate, or loss of the pawn.

## Related Topics

The Opposition Rule of the Square

## Resources

Wikipedia on key squares

Endgame Simulations (against a computer)

ChessDiary #2 - Monday Endgame Pawn Endgame - Key Squares
> 9 votes

# Answer
I'm reading *Fundamental Chess Endings* by Karsten Muller and Frank Lamprecht right now, and the authors seem to imply there is a distinction between key squares and critical squares. On page 14, there is a list of symbols used in the text. A circle is used for a critical square and a star is used for a key square. So, there is an implied difference in this book. But I am puzzled as to what the difference is. "Key square" is defined on page 21 but "Critical square" is not defined before the authors start casually using the term. To add to the confusion, the authors use the circle symbol in diagrams on page 24 but refer to the squares marked with a circle as key squares.

Also, the terms key squares and critical squares are used in more endings than just king and pawn vs. king.
> 2 votes

# Answer
In a pawn and king vs king endgame, key squares are those that guarantee a win. If the pawn is on e3 for example, the key squares for white are d5, e5, and f5. Critical squares (I think) are those where the king must get to promote the pawn (e.g., d7 or f7).
> 2 votes

# Answer
Various authors have used the terms *key squares* and *critical squares* differently. In some places Muller & Lamprecht's explanation is only fair. The confusion is that these terms have been used for two concepts. The first is the square the attacking king must occupy to queen his pawn in a K vs K-P endgame. This is well described above. The second concept is the square your king must occupy to capture a blocked pawn ( opponent's pawn blocked by your pawn ). These are the 3 squares on either side of the opponent's pawn. The Soviet Chess Primer uses terms key & critical squares interchangeably. It calls the 3 squares on either side of a blocked pawn the critical/key squares for capturing that pawn. ( page 146 , diagram 248 ). It explains all of this pp 141-150. Of course its a translation from the Russian. Muller & Lamprecht calls these critical squares. A column by Pandolfini in 2009 says the idea of key squares existed as early as 1860. Grigonev wrote about it in 1922. Strangely many early 20th century GMs did not explicitly express this concept, including Lasker, Rubinstein, Capablanca, Reshevsky and Fine. Alekhine apparently knew about it and Averbakh's "Pawn Endings" uses it.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I am reading *Fundamental Chess Endings* by Karsten Muller and Frank Lamprecht as well. As others mentioned, there is an implied difference between critical squares and key squares.

My two cents is that critical squares are relative to opponent pieces but key squares are relative to the game. Squares are critical squares to some of my opponent pieces (e.g. pawn) if she would lose those pieces were I to occupy the squares with my pieces (e.g. my king). Squares are key squares to the game if my opponent would lose the game were I to occupy those squares.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: endgame, pawns, terminology, kings, pawn-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Most difficult puzzles for chess engines
I know this type of question has been asked a few times but each of the puzzles in the answers are solved by engines. For example Plaskett’s puzzle and other common ones such as Mitrofanov deflection and Mario Matous’ mate in 13 can be seen by matefinders easily. Are there any puzzles that truly stump engines?

# Answer
> -1 votes
Usually, swindles and those sort of puzzles stump engines because practically the best chance of winning is variation A, but the computer prefers variation B because it has a different calculation system to us. Those are usually the hardest for computers and they usually get them wrong, even if it is technically correct.

---
Tags: engines, puzzles
---


title: Attacking as Black in the Caro-Kann

text:
# Question
Title: Attacking as Black in the Caro-Kann
Is it possible to play the Caro-Kann aggressively/tactically as Black?

What are the attacking chances/ideas for black in the Caro-Kann? Or is it simply the wrong opening for that?

I found a few example games, where Black is crushing White in an attack on the king, e.g. in this grandmaster game: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1103209

# Answer
I have found a nice line as Black which gives excellent attacking chances and rapid development at the cost of a double pawn.

The line can be reached via the two-knights or classical mainline variations of the Caro-Kann and include playing Nf6, where it can be captured with a check.

An example would be **1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Nxf6+ exf6**. This line is completely playable, and Stockfish also considers it OK. Statistics of master games indicate, that White scores 10% more wins than in the mainline (lichess database), so it might be a bit risky (?), but I find it very enjoyable as Black. The opponent gets a center pawn majority, but the doubled f pawn also has benefits, as it adds extra protection to the king and can potentially later be used as a battering ram if the opponent also castles kingside.

I find this variation easier to play as Black, whereas I struggle to find plans in the traditional mainline and tend to get outplayed positionally.
> 2 votes

# Answer
In the Caro-Kann, white dictates the speed and sharpness of play. The exchange Caro-Kann typically shies away from tactical/aggressive positions. In the advance bf5, white can play h4 which leads to very aggressive, open, and tactical games for both white and black. You're likely looking for the Advance c5 which is a little more forcing for black that you're likely to get a tactical game.

Honestly, you're probably looking for a different answer to e4 if you want to play an aggressive game against white every time. The Latvian Gambit is losing for black with correct play but if you know the lines, it's easy for white to go wrong quickly.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, tactics, caro-kann, attack, aggressive-play
---


# Question
Title: What sense does promotion to queen make?
When a pawn finally reaches the eighth rank, then it can be promoted to rook, knight, bishop or queen. It is not hard to imagine that a soldier who has achieved a lot could be promoted to an officer. However, it is almost incredible that a meritorious fighter would eventually become a queen, even though the old queen is still alive.

So my questions are:

1. Is every pawn female?
2. Could a king marry more than one queen in ancient times?

# Answer
In the original form of the game from which chess probably derived, chaturanga, there was no piece named "Queen".

The Queen of modern chess probably derived from a piece named "General": in the beginning this piece could move 1 square only diagonally, then its movenemt became more and more similar to the modern Queen. But there's more: in chaturanga there were pieces very similar to pawns, "Soldiers", that could become Generals after having reached opponent's King field.

When chess was imported in Europe, during Middle-Age and Reinassance, passing especially through Spain, pieces were renamed in order to give european players a more comfortable playing background. For example, the uncommon "Elephant" became "Bishop" (a very well known figure in catholic regions). And the General became the "Queen". But they only renamed pieces without changing the mechanic of the game. Thus, a "Soldier" could (and can) still be promoted.
> 17 votes

# Answer
To answer your questions...

1. I never checked
2. It's good to be the king - Mel Brooks

In the original game (and perhaps even today), what Europeans call the queen, the Indians call the Advisor.

It's just a language thing.
> 4 votes

# Answer
"Queen" in this instance, means "second in command."

Most "queens" in real life are only wives of kings. They typically aren't "second in commands." Exceptions might occur if the king was weak or incapacitated, or if the king died and his minor son became "king," in which case his MOTHER might be the Queen REGENT. ruling for her minor son. In such a situation, you might have a second "queen" when the king grew up and got married.

A better term for "queen" in chess might be "prime minister." Normally, you wouldn't have two Prime Ministers, but if there was an exceptionally valiant and accomplished soldier, you might, one (the soldier) for war, the other (original one) for peace.
> 4 votes

# Answer
It makes no sense. They should promote pawns to generals. The general should be able to move exactly like the queen.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: history, pawns, pawn-promotion, queens
---


# Question
Title: What is the idea behind a d4 e3 f4 pawn setup?
I have seen this particular d4 e3 f4 pawn-setup played a few times, sometimes arising from the Bird opening (as below), sometimes from 1.d4:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1.f4 d5 2. e3 g6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. d4

```

I don't see why white would willingly create such a pawn-structure. Not only has white an obvious weakness on e4, a large light-square complex becomes weak, and the dark bishop becomes almost useless. Sure, white has some power over e5, but that can hardly be used while f6 remains available for black. Perhaps white wants to try to break this position open, but I don't see how to support a e3-e4 push, for example. Furthermore, if the position does open, a king-side castle would become rather unsafe, I think. (A queen-side castle seems even more dangerous, given that black has plenty opportunity to mobilize the queen-side pawns. Finally, Stockfish seems to agree that black is a bit better in this particular position.

Yet, this position is played with some frequency (at the amateur level, at least). Why? Is there some tactical trick I'm missing? Is the only strength of this concept surprise? It seems just bad to me, and in all games I encountered this, white's clear weaknesses eventually led to their downfall.

# Answer
The Stonewall Attack and the Dutch Stonewall are systems with an easy attacking formation. By Placing the Bd3, Ne5, and the queen on the h-file, white plays for a quick mating attack, even using a rook file and/or a g-pawn advance to increase the pressure.
If black plays g6, white should alter the attack by playing Be2 and advance the h-pawn.

BTW, Kramnik claims that the Bg7 is as bad as Bc1.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: opening, pawn-structure, birds-opening
---


# Question
Title: Techniques used for Stockfish engine selectivity
Example puzzle (I'm sure there are numerous that fit this bill):

```
[FEN "rnbq3r/pppp4/3b1pkp/5p2/2BP4/4P3/PPP2PPP/RN1QK2R w KQ - 0 1"]
[Site "Earth"]
[White ""]

1. Qh5+ Kxh5 2. Bf7+ Kh4 3. Nd2 Bb4 4. c3 f4 5. Nf3+ Kg4 6. e4 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 f5 8. h3#

```

I've found a 8 move checkmate that takes Stockfish a depth of 36 ply to solve. Since the checkmate is only 16 ply deep in the game search tree, what *specific* mechanisms cause the engine to take *20 ply* longer to find the solution?

I understand that the high level answer is engine selectivity. However, my understanding is that Stockfish's forward pruning tended to be pretty safe (such as null move pruning). Plus, if the solution were being forward pruned, *wouldn't it keep being pruned even at later depths*?

I also thought that reductions such as late move reductions only really reduce the search depth by a one or a few ply, not 20!

(The winning move is a check, so it shouldn't be reduced by something like late move reduction anyways.)

What gives?

(Crossposted...will be sure to update if anything comes of it)

# Answer
For anyone who stumbles across this wondering the same thing, I received an answer to my question here. This post is thus a courtesy of u/\__Durandal\__ and IMJorose. Though I can't do justice to their write-ups and highly recommend them, in case it somehow goes down, I'll summarize the gist here.

The reduction techniques in Stockfish are *not* limited to just one or two ply—late move reductions, for example, are calculated based on the number of moves already searched and the current depth. In the current implementation:

> If a position has 40 moves in it and is searched at depth 16, the reduction applied is five plies.

Furthermore, any potentially-unsafe pruning techniques (i.e. avoiding entire part of the tree) have a depth cap at which they stop operating. These two phenomena explain what I was seeing.

Notably, given infinite time, Stockfish will still converge to the minimax solution: reduction techniques become inconsequential at infinite depth and depth caps mean that nothing will be overlooked via pruning.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I am not an expert on this, but I think one can get some insight into this by examining how Leela's Monte Carlo Tree Search works. Leela's neural network gives 1) a win percentage for that position, and 2) a list of candidate moves to consider, each with a probability. Leela then uses that probability in its searches. For example, if the neural network is 99% confident that a particular move is correct, then Leela will spend 99% (?) of its time looking at that move.

*However*, it will also eventually look at the remaining 1%. It will de-emphasize the other moves, and it will spend less time looking at those moves, but it will do so eventually.

I think that's what you're seeing here. The key first move gives away a Queen for no apparent compensation, so Stockfish de-emphasizes it. However, after it has searched the mainlines to very high depth (d=36), it goes back and looks at the moves it earlier de-emphasized. It finds that 1.Qh5+ is better, and this line becomes promoted to the new principal variation.

I do not know the technical details, however.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, programming, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: Have there been any titled North Korean players?
I recently played against a player with a North Korean flag on Chess.com. I assume they just picked that flag for a laugh or something, but it did get me wondering; have there been any titled North Korean players? If not, have any North Koreans achieved any recognition in chess?

# Answer
I tried searching for players by countries in ratings.fide.com's advanced search feature but i couldn't seem to find the north korea country there

After some research, I found this player: Roza Lallemand which is a french GM from north korea

I don't know if this counts as she is born in North Korea but she is a french player
> 13 votes

---
Tags: famous-players, titles
---


title: Resources on chess variants

text:
# Question
Title: Resources on chess variants
* While posting this question, I stumbled on this **list of variants** from Wikipedia, which I must admit is totally awesome.
* I know a few **online servers** allow a few variants, but am not aware of places where *many* variants players would gather, which would they be ?
* Are there famous clubs for **on the board** variants play ?
* Collections of fairy chess **problems** ?
* This list of **fairy pieces** is not at all bad, but could use a few more easy-to-understand diagrams, and some art for representations.
* I guess there's enough to say on this topic for **books** to be published on the subject ?

# Answer
Apart from the main chess sites (lichess.org, chess.com), there are a number of other sites where variants can be played:

**Pychess-variants**: Based on lichess's source code and powered by Fairy-Stockfish. The list of supported variants is huge, including popular ones like S-Chess, Capablanca, and crazyhouse and 960 variants of these, as well as xiangqi, janggi, shogi, makruk, sittuyin, and even variants thereof. You can play against humans or challenge different levels of Fairy-Stockfish, which is the strongest available AI for many of the variants offered. The userbase is still growing (circa June 2020), but the most reliable method for now is to ask in the lobby or in the Pychess Discord server for a game.

**vchess**: Still under constant development, but offers a huge amount of western chess variants, including many not offered elsewhere. There are also options for normal, symmetrical or asymmetrical 960 starting positions for many variants. Best to make appointments with other variant enthusiasts to meet here and play.

**PlayOK**: An established site with a large userbase. Aside from the big regional variants of chess, xiangqi, makruk and shogi, also features many other board and card games. Many Asian players play xiangqi and makruk here.

---

As for chess variant communities, with the rise of new social apps and the appearance of variants on the major modern chess sites, the previously disparate communities started to coalesce and band together.

**PyChess Players Discord**: As previously mentioned, the Pychess site has an associated Discord. Channels for individual variants exist, as well as being the place to ask anyone online for games. The developers, translators, and other volunteers also hang out here. The community is still growing as the site improves and becomes more well known.

**The House Discord**: One of the largest (and strongest?) chess variant communities. A Discord server bringing together players of all strengths and many variants, principally those offered on lichess.org, chess.com, and Pychess. Many of the best players in the world in each variant hang out here (this is not hyperbole). These players have also created valuable resources to help others learn and improve in the variants. Definitely worth checking out if you're thinking of improving in a variant.
> 6 votes

# Answer
~~Unfortunately I don't know of a chess server where they play chess variants,~~ (see update below) but I have a few other resources.

The program Winboard has several variants, including Shogi, Xiangqi, Shatranj and Atomic.

I also found a very cool blog, the guy there goes over a lot of chess and checker variants. Its pretty cool!
Here is a article he has about Fairy Chess.

There are also several books written on the subject including:

And the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants

***Update***
In my ramblings I ran accross this page, indicating that the ICC allows chess variants.
Quote:

> ICC offers a number of chess variants.

I also found a book on Fairy Chess. Unfortunately it appears to be out of print.
> 12 votes

# Answer
I love playing chess variants. For playing live games, FICS supports the major chess variants: Suicide, Atomic, Losers, Crazyhouse and Upside-Down.

For playing correspondence games, I use both Scheming Mind and BrainKing. They each have the normal variants (above), as well as a few unique ones. The ones unique to Scheming Mind include Benedict Chess and Chicken Chess. The ones unique to BrainKing include Ice Age Chess and Cheshire Cat Chess.

These sites are free, for a limited number of games. There are ladders and tournaments, so you can play against other people who enjoy the same variants. You can find me there under my real name (I do not use a handle).
> 8 votes

# Answer
I am surprised that no one yet mentioned http://www.chessvariants.com/ --- the most comprehensive web site on Chess variants I am aware of. They also support a play-by-mail server for many Chess variants.

The Chess variants offer there are range from Modest variants (which is probably close to the variants the original poster is looking for) to rather wild and deviating variant.
> 8 votes

# Answer
You can play correspondence chess variants on the Apronus.com interactive chessboard by generating links to click which encode the board position and all the mvoes made.

For example a short game on an 8x5 board.

<sub>(source: apronus.com)</sub>
> 4 votes

# Answer
As I have seen it, FICS seems to be the best place for variants. But number of people playing all variants vary. The following are supported on FICS-

```
Chess
BugHouse
CrazyHouse
Suicide
Atomic
FischerRandom
Losers
Wild 0 through Wild 8(a)

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
Try Connect Score. The game combines Chess with Dots and Boxes. The game can be viewed at: http://connect-score.blogspot.ca/

Rick Nordal
> 1 votes

# Answer
There's a training site on variants : https://chessvariants.training/

> We support these variants: Antichess, Atomic chess, King of the Hill, Three-check, Horde chess and Racing Kings.

So more or less the set of variants supported on lichess. It's mostly puzzles about tactics, and some about endgames.
> 1 votes

# Answer
There is now a theory book on Horde Chess, full with annotated games and strategies.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


title: Who is the Ross Gambit named after?

text:
# Question
Title: Who is the Ross Gambit named after?
Recently in an infamous online charity simul, against Vishy Anand's Zukertort opening 1. Nf3, Indian billionaire Nikhil Kamath played the dubious 1...e5?, the so-called "Ross Gambit" by chess.com and Lichess opening explorers. This promptly led to 2. Nxe5, Vishy capturing the pawn and putting him in an advantageous position, with a knight in the center of the board and the opponent down a pawn with no development. The only reference to the naming of this I could find is strangely from Urban Dictionary, which explains the origin of The Ross Gambit in ironic terms:

> A complex, higher level chess endgame maneuver in which the winning player sets up an unnecessary stalemate. Its primary use is in matches where a draw is more advantageous than a win. Originally scoffed at by modern players, the depth and creativity of the Ross Gambit is now hailed by chess theoreticians worldwide. The Ross Gambit is classified under post-pre-modern chess endgame strategies.

> In the infamous game of "Ross's Folly" (McCarthy v. Crutcher, 2010), Ross McCarthy narrowly pulled out a draw against the near-vanquished Ian Crutcher. McCarthy's success in creating a stalemate when Crutcher had nearly achieved defeat is the first documented instance of The Ross Gambit.

Unfortunately I cannot find any information on this game or even who these players are. Oddly it is referred to as an endgame strategy. Is there (reliable) documentation on the naming of this gambit?

# Answer
> 3 votes
**The Name**

It originates from "Ross" which it German means "Horse". This is basically because you gambit and the knight takes. Pretty unexciting. Definitely not like the Jalalabad as an example of a cool history.

**The Idea** The whole intent of the gambit is to start an immediate attack on the queen. There is the potential for some sharp lines but that's about it.

I tried to dig around for some history; early comes popularity etc; Based of the survey that i had to build because turns out there really aren't any; its really only been played about 200 times in top level games , mostly online.

Earliest Reference I can find to this opening is an Unknown player vs Lasker. This was during a simultaneous game he was playing in the US.

```
[Event "Lasker Emanuel sim tour"]
[Site "USA"]
[Date "1907.??.??"]
[White "NN"]
[Black "Lasker, Emanuel"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A04"]
[FEN ""]

1. Nf3 e5 2. Nxe5 c5 3. d4 cxd4 4. Qxd4 d6 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Qd1 Nf6 7. Nc3 d5 8. Bg5 d4 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Ne4 f5 11. Ned2 f4 12. c3 dxc3 13. bxc3 Bg7 14. Ne4 Qa5 15. Qd2 O-O 16. Rc1 Bf5 17. Nd6 Rad8 18. Nxb7 Qa3 19. Nxd8 Rxd8 20. Nd4 Nxd4 21. cxd4 Rxd4 22. Rc3 Qb4 23. Rd3 0-1

```

Other "Ross Gambits" specifically the Scandinavian Marshall/Ross Gambit.

Named after Thomas Ross, and is derived from the Scandinavian Defense, it is effectively a reversed Danish Gambit but for black. Highly suggest looking into it;

https://faithsaves.net/scandinavian-marshall-ross-gambit/

---
Tags: opening, gambits
---


# Question
Title: is The following position a win or a draw?
In an engine match Leela zero vs Komodo 14 Dragon at hyper-long time 6 hours each engine) in an Alekhine Defense game, Modern variation, the following rook endgame appeared on the board.

```
[FEN "4r1k1/pp3p2/6p1/2B3K1/2P4P/8/PP3P2/6R1 b - - 0 1"]

```

BLACK to move. According to KOMODO 14 Dragon internal analysis the position is + 1,99 at White at depth = 49 63.2M of tablebases. Meaning that we do not know if the above position is a win or a draw. Please, someone with a software powerful enough can go deeper? Is the position above, critical for the evaluation of the Alekhine opening, a win for White or a draw?

# Answer
**The Position: Win or Draw**

It is as Draw! Which I am genuinely surprised about to be honest. My initial review of the board would say that with the following; White should be winning (which they are in the starting position);

* 5 v 5 Pawns
* 1 v 1 Rook
* White has a Bishop
* Whites King has been engaged in the offence.

However as black has the move initiative ... they are able to slowly equalize the position.

**On the Topic of Table Bases**

End Game TableBases now aren't necessarily as relevant as they use to be. Which is probably a good thing. Reasonable TableBases are rare, and more importantly they are impractical. If you have a table base of 5 pieces, if I have a table base of 6 piece end games...well, then there is no competition. Here is where it gets tricky. How do you reasonably provide that to engine,

The Syzygy 7 Piece TableBase is 18tb , containing 4.23e14 positions. A Syzygy 8 piece TableBase (*which doesn't even exist and is what is technically required for this position*) is something like 3.8e16 positions and would require probably 4.5PB of storage if not more.

**Interesting Take Aways**

* Stockfish sees the position as a draw and equal (0.00) at move 20.
* Stockfish more efficient at analyzing the position and reaching the position at a depth of of 35.
* Looks like there is a new build of stockfish planned that appears to be slightly more efficient at reviewing the position.
* List item

**The Results**

```
[Event "StockFish 14 Analysis of Position Depth 52 @923753 kN/s"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4r1k1/pp3p2/6p1/2B3K1/2P4P/8/PP3P2/6R1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "66"]

1... Re5+ 2. Kf4 Rxc5 3. b3 Rf5+ 4. Ke3 Re5+ 5. Kf3 Rf5+ 6. Ke2 Re5+ 7. Kf1 Kg7 8. Rg3 a6 9. Re3 Rh5 10. Ke2 Rxh4 11. Re7 b5 12. Kd3 Kf6 13. Re1 Rh5 14. Kd4 Rh4+ 15. Kd5 bxc4 16. bxc4 Rh2 17. c5 Rxf2 18. a4 Rd2+ 19. Kc6 Ra2 20. Kb6 Rxa4 $11 21. c6 Rc4 22. c7 Rc2 23. Re8 g5 24. c8=R Rxc8 25. Rxc8 g4 26. Rf8 Kf5 27. Kxa6 g3 28. Rxf7+ Kg4 29. Kb5 g2 30. Rg7+ Kf3 31. Kc5 Kf2 32. Kc4 Kf1 33. Kc5 g1=Q+ 34. Rxg1+ Kxg1

```

**Method**

Hijacked the GPU Cluster from Work (again...see the footer as to why). Running StockFish14 as its a "neutral" engine in regards to the analysis / outcome of the game...in that it wasn't involved. It is also faster and more accurate at pruning positions that Komodo.

Also decided to run this through ChessBase to see what other folks had found.

*I originally did the analysis on this but stuffed up and had as White to Move. Which was White had a forced mate sequence (Mate in 20 though)*
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Was there a bug in Stockfish similar to the bug in Houdini 6.02?
This is a follow-up question to Is Houdini 6 a Stockfish clone?

Houdini 6.03 included a bugfix: "Correction for incorrect detection of stalemate in positions with white pawn capture moves."

If Houdini is a Stockfish clone, then this bug should also have been in Stockfish. Was it?

# Answer
Reviewing the Stockfish Issues/Bugs and commits & Releases on GitHub

would indicate that this has not been logged as an issue or a bug. In addition I am unable to locate any instances of users reporting the same faults that Houdini had with Stockfish.

In addition if you review the commit difference between version 8 and 9 it is also not addressed in that release (or any other future releases to my knowledge)

**Potential Resons why the bug exists in Houdini and not Stockfish**

The question implies that there are no code changes between Stockfish and Houdini.

This is largely the case. The code more or less went through a google translate function. The algorithms with how it calculates the strength of positions and moves remains entirely unchanged. They added a *expletitive* multiplier on the output for the calculations / second which buffed the number by 8% or something crazy. Whole bunch of dodgy stuff. The program was basically identical but Dutch.

One thing I did notice that was different when all this came out and the source code was flying around; Was the weighting of pieces in stages of the game. I am not going to go through it programmatically (partially because I can't seem to find the code anymore) but a simplification on what is occurring is the following;

StockFish gives pieces a value based of a theoretical weighting depending on the position of the game (or more specifically how it interprets the stage of the game);

Lets say hypothetically stockfish evaluates it as;

* MidGame Pawn = 150
* EndGame Pawn = 250
* Midgame Bishop = 500
* EndGame Bishop = 600

Houdini does the exact same thing, but someone didn't agree with the overall evaluation that the folks behind stockfish thinks, they do it hypothetically like the following.

* Midgame Pawn = 100
* Endgame Pawn = 300
* Midgame Bishop = 500
* Endgame Bishop = 750

Say on the board White has 1 Bishop 2 Pawns , Black has 5 Pawns. Effectively the difference is;

* Stockfish : White, 1100 Black, 1250 (+/-12% Eval difference)
* Houdini : White, 1350 Black, 1500 (+/-10% Eval difference)

Now fundamentally the code is identical but slight variable changes can have an impact on the output. Now this is the next thing; who's weighting is correct? Considering Stockfish (to my knowledge happy to be proven wrong) have not released a version update indicating a "fix" for this issue that Houdini had, I would say ... Stockfish probably evaluated it right.

To summarise it would appear , that Houdini is largely a dutch translation of source code of stockfish. It would make sense that Stockfish would be bound by similar issues ...however the Houdini team also did change some minor things that does affect the position evaluation.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, houdini
---