# Question
Title: What does "U2000: ($600 b/25) $250-150-100." mean?
When looking for tournaments I keep finding myself confused by abbreviations used (I just found a reference which has been slightly helpful). This one for example is from a Marshall club tournament in the coming future. I get the Under 2000 part but what about the

"($600 b/25) $250-150-100" ?

Here is the full listing:

> 6-SS, G/90 +30. Two sections. U2000: ($600 b/25) $250-150-100. U1700: $100. U1400: ($600 b/25) $250-150-100. U1100: $100. EF: $60, MCC Mbrs $40. Reg:. 6:15-6:45pm. Rds.: 7pm each Wed. Limit two byes; request by rd. 4. www.marshallchessclub.org. 23 W. 10th St., NYC. 212-477-3716.

# Answer
Based on ("b/") 25 entries in the section, its total prize pool will be $600. That money will be distributed as $250 for first place, $150 for second place, $100 for third place, and $100 for the top-finishing player under 1700 in the under 2000 section.

If there are more than 25 entries, the prize pool will be larger, and the prizes for each place will likely be adjusted proportionally. Likewise, the prize pool will be smaller if there are under 25 entries.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: tournament, terminology
---


# Question
Title: Does any country have as many GM's per capita as Armenia?
Does any country have as many GM's per capita as Armenia?

If not which country is the closest? What are the some of the reasons for Armenian success in the chess world with its relatively small population?

Are there best practices from chess education in Armenia that can be utilized in other countries hoping to raise more strong Grandmasters?

# Answer
> 9 votes
It's from 2010 but you might look at

http://pogonina.com/index.php?option=com\_content&task=view&id=154

where as expected Iceland is number 1, and Armenia is number 3. Number 2 might surprise you!

# Answer
> 7 votes
NationMaster compiled a list of countries in order of GMs per capita, in 2006. In their study, Iceland and Andorra top Armenia.

This is still the case, as Iceland currently boasts 13 GMs, and a population totaling a mere 332,529 as of January 1. Per capita 0.0000391.

Andorra still holds its place above Armenia as well; its population is 78,014 as of 2015, and it boasts two GMs, David Norwood and Oscar De La Riva Aguado. That results in a per capita of 0.0000256 GMs.

These countries are successful in this stat just because the population is so low. In a small country, one GM makes a very big statistical difference.

Armenia estimates it has 3,013,900 inhabitants as of 2014, and FIDE shows 36 GMS, which puts their per capita at 0.0000119, less than half Andorra's per capita total.

I checked into the top ten countries in NationMaster's list, to find whether any other country had crept above Armenia within the 10 years since NationMaster's study, but it appears that Armenia holds its 3rd place position pretty securely.

I wouldn't read too much into these data. Iceland actually has fewer IMs than GMs (11 vs. 13), and so does Armenia (29 vs. 36). (Andorra has 2 IMs). Also, Armenia places 7th in NationMaster's IM study. There are, on average, 2.31 IMs per GM (3519/1522), so Iceland, Andorra, and Armenia's combined total of 42 IMs (instead of the expected average of 118) indicates a very large margin of error. I guess most of the influx of GMs is a statistical fluctuation that will resolve somewhat over time (say, in a generation).

That said, chess is a mandatory school subject in Armenia as of 2011. Rather than a cause (as no current GMs would have been affected by this ruling), this move might be a symptom of chess proclivity in Armenia's culture, which would explain its popularity in the country. As far as I could tell, Iceland has no special chess program, but when you take a random sample as small as 300,000, some samples will contain no GMs and some will have 13 (or more). That kind of statistical "noise" doesn't necessarily mean anything.

---
Tags: grandmaster
---


title: Piece movement statistics

text:
# Question
Title: Piece movement statistics
I have wondered about piece movement statistics, for example:

* How many times is a piece moved in average (in general, but also per-piece, as I'm guessing the Queen moves more than any specific pawn)?
* What is the average maximum number of moves for a specific piece?

# Answer
I found an interesting page featuring the results of some data mining on a sample of 4,226,520 games, and from which answers to your questions can be extracted, at least for that large sample of games, which is probably reasonably reflective of what happens in general.

According to the numbers there, the average game has a ply count of 57.63 (i.e. total number of moves by both White and Black). So the number of times a single piece is moved is, on average,

```
57.63 / 32 = 1.8009

```

The page also lists the total number of moves played in these games by each type of piece of each color, from which we can derive the following per-game figures:

```
White piece moves
-----------------
P: 7.7708 total moves, .9714 per pawn
N: 5.1677 total moves, 2.5838 per knight
B: 4.6259 total moves, 2.3130 per bishop
R: 4.6985 total moves, 2.3493 per rook
Q: 3.5775
K: 3.1718

Black piece moves
-----------------
P: 7.7998 total moves, .9750 per pawn
N: 5.1576 total moves, 2.5788 per knight
B: 4.3511 total moves, 2.1756 per bishop
R: 4.5364 total moves, 2.2682 per rook
Q: 3.4869
K: 3.2875

```

These figures ignore the fact that some piece moves will have been made my promoted pieces, but on the whole such moves will be a very small piece of the pie, so these numbers shouldn't be too far off the mark.
> 15 votes

# Answer
As a minor modification to EDT's material, above:

> According to the numbers there, the average game has a ply count of 57.63 (i.e. total number of moves by both White and Black). So the number of times a single piece is moved is, on average,
>
> 57.63 / 32 = 1.8009

A given ply will see only one player's piece moved (castling aside). This means that the simplest average to be obtained should approach:

`57.63 / 16 = 3.601875`

*Note: this necessarily doesn't address any variables such as lost pieces, nor does it seek to address per-piece moves. This is intended only to address the special case of a "lossless" \[in terms of pieces captured\] game.*
> 1 votes

---
Tags: statistics, pieces
---


title: Arena Software and Mac OS X

text:
# Question
Title: Arena Software and Mac OS X
Does someone know or have tested a way of using ARENA software on Mac OS X?

Maybe using Wine or something similar.

# Answer
According to the Chessfiles \[ref. 1\], Arena \[ref. 2\] can be played on OS X within Wine 1.0 or higher \[ref. 3\]. Likewise, Arena claims to function within Wine 1.0 or higher.

Caveat: some indicate Arena to be unstable within Wine \[ref. 4\], some have no problem \[ref. 5, 6\].

---

**References:**

1. http://www.chessfiles.com/os-x-chess-gui.html
2. http://www.playwitharena.com/
3. https://wiki.winehq.org/MacOSX
4. http://www.open-aurec.com/wbforum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6550
5. http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-377613.html
6. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=31659
> 1 votes

---
Tags: software
---


title: Castling in XBoard's edit mode

text:
# Question
Title: Castling in XBoard's edit mode
Probably a stupid question, but I use XBoard with Fairy-Max or GNU Chess. In the edit game mode, or in analysis mode, it is not possible to castle under any circumstances. Is there some setting I am missing?

Edit: Here is an example:

For the position: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Bc4 Be7

I would like to play 6.O-O. Typing the move in returns "{White mates} 1-0". Dragging the king over two spaces returns "illegal move". Doesn't matter which engine is selected. I can castle while playing against the computer, however.

# Answer
According to XBoard's manual \[ref. 1\]:

> "...XBoard 4.2.7 and earlier... The internal move legality tester
> \[*had problems with*\] castling or en passant-capture rights."

If you're running 4.2.7 (or earlier), then a newer release should solve this problem.

**Caution:** Although this is *not* relevant to the specifics of the question, I feel that if you are running this version, then it would be remiss of me were I not to mention that there is also a reported security risk (mid-grade: stack overflow) inherent to XBoard 4.2.7 \[ref. 2, 3\].

---

**References:**

1. https://www.gnu.org/software/xboard/manual/xboard.html#Limitations
2. https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor\_id-2551/product\_id-4447/version\_id-19153/Tim-Mann-Xboard-4.2.7.html
3. http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2004/Mar/40
> 3 votes

---
Tags: software, castling
---


title: Was Ilya Makoveev cheating?

text:
# Question
Title: Was Ilya Makoveev cheating?
I don't know the veracity of this link, but it says the wunderkind Ilya Makoveev is disqualified for cheating. I could also see this as well. Is it true? What happened actually?

# Answer
It's been 1 more month, yet I can't find anything new on Google (beyond your original post's links) to the same effect. I found only one related item, and it's speculation to the contrary (the speculation consists essentially of a CIA agent, a worm, and a chess engine).

I can't guarantee this, but I suspect the Makoveev-cheating story to be an internet rumor.

*Speculation to the contrary:*
http://chessvdk.ru/forum/index.php?topic=459.235;wap2
> 2 votes

---
Tags: cheating
---


# Question
Title: Practicing against an engine vs practicing over the board?
When I initially started playing chess I used books and board. Later, when I started using chess software, I think my game improved a lot for a time, and I got a rating of 2000 at **chess.com**

But I am now faced with the following problem: when I recently went to a tournament I was completely blank over the board, and I was feeling that this is a bit different. I was not able to calculate moves.

The question is: how should I maintain balance between engine practice and over-the-board practice?

# Answer
Engines do not make tactical or blunt mistakes. However, their calculation range is given by their predefined strength.

People behave differently. In general, their game is rather stable. But they can make big mistakes, or on the contrary, excellent moves, when you don't expect it.

Also, when playing against people, there is a certain level when psychology comes into account. Stress is generally higher than against an engine, which won't feel any emotions when playing against you.

That's one beautilful part of the game too, emotions are confronted. Good players know how to keep control.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: engines, tournament, best-practice
---


title: Ideas behind the Grünfeld defense

text:
# Question
Title: Ideas behind the Grünfeld defense
I started a game (with the black pieces) where I have the possibilty to play the Grünfeld that I never played before.

> 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 **d5**

I want to know what's the main idea behind it, especially for black, since I heard that it could lead to sharp positions and complications (even Kasparov had a hard time playing it against Karpov)

# Answer
> 4 votes
The main idea behind the Grünfeld is that Black momentarily concedes the center to White, only to attack it later.

For example, in the Exchange variation, White often gets a pawn center (c3, d4, e4) while Black will put it under pressure (especially aimed at the white d-pawn). Below is a diagram with a typical pawn structure for this variation, and some black pieces on squares where they can often be found.

```
[FEN "3r2k1/pp2ppbp/2n3p1/q1p5/3PP3/2P5/P4PPP/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: opening, grunfeld-defense
---


title: SAN for nullmove?

text:
# Question
Title: SAN for nullmove?
The long algebraic notation (lan) for null move is usually 00-00 or simply 0000. Chess engines that support the nullmove: "give up a turn, and let the other side move" typically use this as its part of UCI. What would the SAN representation be?

# Answer
Νικόλαος Μανωλακος asked:

> What would the SAN representation \[*of a null move*\] be?

Several possibilities present themselves as to what the SAN notation can be, but *none* that I have found claim to be *the official* standard specification for SAN. The following results indicate within the quotation marks the annotation used (intended to be used without the quotation marks).

**NAG (Numeric Annotation Glyph) "$0"**
*IAW art. 10, table 1, line 1 \[ref. 1, 2, 3\]*

**PGN's SAN: "--"**
*\[ref. 4, 5, 6, 7\]*
*Note: In ref. 7, null moves start out as mere comments, and can become \[null\] moves, but it's unclear as to whether they necessarily become so.*

**PGN's SAN: "@@@@"**
*\[ref. 8\]*

**"\<\>", "--"**
*\[ref. 9\]*
*Note: "A Null Move acts as a placeholder for an expected move that is not played."*

**"pass", "null", "@@@@"**
*\[ref. 10\]*

**Stockfish's SAN: "null"**
*\[ref. 11\]*

**"(null)"**
*\[ref. 12\]*

---

**References:**

1. http://www.saremba.de/chessgml/standards/pgn/pgn-complete.htm#c10
2. https://www.chessclub.com/user/help/PGN-spec
3. https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/Games-Chess/lib/Games/Chess/PGN.pod#NUMERIC-ANNOTATION-GLYPHS
4. https://github.com/k2052/chess.rb/blob/master/lib/chess/san.rb
5. https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/djb/pgn-extract/help.html#portability
6. https://www.gnu.org/software/xboard/whats\_new/4.6.0/#tag-D6
7. http://www.triplehappy.com/faq.html
8. https://www.gnu.org/software/xboard/engine-intf.html#8
9. http://www.enpassant.dk/chess/palview/manual/pgn.htm#pgncontnull
10. http://hgm.nubati.net/alien.html
11. https://github.com/mcostalba/FishCooking/blob/master/src/notation.cpp
12. https://github.com/erashid/DON/blob/master/src/Notation.cpp
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, notation, uci
---


# Question
Title: Is there a name for a rook moving in front of the pawn on a particular file?
I have tried to make a diagram but cannot figure out how to do the FEN, sorry.

In a game that I played online somebody has done a rather strange thing, they moved their rook in front of the pawn on that file. In that particular game this actually resulted in them winning, but since I have never seen anything like this before I thought that it must be named something.

# Answer
> 6 votes
This manoeuvre is usually called a "rook lift".

The commentators Shahade and Seirawan try to popularise the term "rover" which is supposed to be short for "rook up and over". It's a bit of a running gag on their shows.

Here's an example in which the rook lift was pretty surprising for the live commentators:

```
[Event "Kramnik vs Deep Fritz"]
[Site "Bonn GER"]
[Date "2006.12.05"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Deep Fritz (Computer)"]
[Black "Vladimir Kramnik"]
[ECO "B90"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "93"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.O-O
Be7 8.Bb3 Qc7 9.Re1 Nc6 10.Re3 O-O 11.Rg3 Kh8 12.Nxc6 bxc6
13.Qe2 a5 14.Bg5 Ba6 15.Qf3 Rab8 16.Re1 c5 17.Bf4 Qb7 18.Bc1
Ng8 19.Nb1 Bf6 20.c3 g6 21.Na3 Qc6 22.Rh3 Bg7 23.Qg3 a4 24.Bc2
Rb6 25.e5 dxe5 26.Rxe5 Nf6 27.Qh4 Qb7 28.Re1 h5 29.Rf3 Nh7
30.Qxa4 Qc6 31.Qxc6 Rxc6 32.Ba4 Rb6 33.b3 Kg8 34.c4 Rd8 35.Nb5
Bb7 36.Rfe3 Bh6 37.Re5 Bxc1 38.Rxc1 Rc6 39.Nc3 Rc7 40.Bb5 Nf8
41.Na4 Rdc8 42.Rd1 Kg7 43.Rd6 f6 44.Re2 e5 45.Red2 g5 46.Nb6
Rb8 47.a4 1-0

```

---
Tags: rooks
---


# Question
Title: What are the sites and links to get a FIDE rating?
I am an active member of Chess.com. Now, I want a FIDE rating. Are there any possibilities that with reference to the Chess.com rating, I can get a FIDE rating? Since I am new to this please provide me a clear suggestion.

# Answer
> 3 votes
It is not possible to get a FIDE rating based on Chess.com rating.

First you need to join the Fide Online Community, by registering there and then start playing to get your own rating here.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Chess.com is a private organization that is not affiliated with FIDE (the World Chess Federation). Also, Chess.com's ratings are based on online play (and so unofficial), whereas FIDE only rates official, over-the-board tournaments. So it is not possible to get a FIDE rating based on Chess.com rating.

You can get a FIDE rating by playing in a tournament that will get rated by FIDE.

# Answer
> 4 votes
You can get official FIDE rating for online play at https://arena.myfide.net/

---
Tags: online-chess, fide
---


# Question
Title: Is Chess960 a desirable alternative to classical chess?
Considering the great depth to which most opening lines have been analyzed by computers now, requiring a voluminous memory to compete successfully at the highest levels, is substituting the variant Chess 960(Fischerandom) for classical chess a desirable option to revitalize the game and restore the creativity that was once its hallmark?

# Answer
I want to put forth a few arguments, why I don't consider it desirable to substitute classical chess with Chess960:

* The rumours of a draw death of chess have been greatly exaggerated. The idea that chess will one day be played out, is more than a hundred years old, but the draw rate in top level chess is actually growing very slowly. And the rate of short draws has decreased a lot in the last decade because of Sofia rules and similar measures.
* The idea of the draw death and of Chess960 is that opening theory will become the dominating factor in top level games, but in recent years it has been pretty obvious that the opposite is actually happening. Nowadays you cannot really regularly outprepare your opponents anymore. Players like Carlsen don't even try to get opening advantages, they just go for an unknown position and play chess. In the end, when everything is known about openings, preparation will probably play less of a role, not more!
* Openings are an integral part of how chess is played. Openings are rather like genres in literature, they have their own character and this adds depth to the games. Many players like "their" openings. I wouldn't be any happier about never playing or replaying a king's gambit game anymore than I would be about never reading an epic fantasy novel again. If you throw opening theory out of the window, you also get rid of a lot of knowledge and history. In the end you have games that are played on a lower level and aren't part of an intricate and well understood history of games in a particular variation.

Conclusion: Chess960 is a fun alternative, but substituting classical chess with Chess960 would probably be more of a loss than a gain.
> 8 votes

# Answer
BlindKungFuMaster has offered some interesting points from the perspective of the GM players and those watching it. I would like to offer some from the perspective of the newcomers.

Chess960 (and/or Chess480) is the great alternative to the classical chess, because it makes it impossible (or much more difficult) to win by simple memorisation, and one must actually use original thinking from the very first move.

Currently there are, of course, things like this that take place, but in most cases if a newcomer will play somebody 2000+ then the stronger opponent may actually not need to think at all for the first many moves.

Where Chess960 fails in that regard is when we talk about castling, and Chess480 would be a better alternative, since it doesn't require a person to "intuitively" feel the known castling positions.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, chess-variants, chess960
---


title: Opening g3 - Bg2

text:
# Question
Title: Opening g3 - Bg2
I couldn't find much sources on this opening.

I'm teaching my young students for them not to bother with opening theory in their early chess experience.

I push it as far as playing it black or white. Having this position no matter what (if the opponent is playing decent moves) with white:

```
[FEN ""]
1. g3 e5 2. Bg2 d5 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. c4 Be6 7. Nc3 O-O
8. a3 a5 9. Rb1

```

Same goes for black (g6 etc ...).

The idea behind this is securing our king fast, and launching an attack on the queenside while strenghtening the diagonal of our bishop on the kingside.

Next we want to prepare b4. I don't really know what to do with my dark-squared bishop though.

If some of you could give me some good advice or insight on this opening (is it good? Bad? What are the plans?) that would be awesome.

# Answer
> 6 votes
1. g3 is called the Benko opening or the King's fianchetto opening. It usually transposes into other systems where White plays g3 in the opening (e.g. the English or the Catalan), but the position you're showing reminds me of a reversed Sicilian Dragon (if White plays cxd5) or a reversed King's Indian / Pirc (if Black plays d4).

You could do a couple of things with your dark-squared bishop, e.g. exchange it for the knight on f6, to strengthen your grip on the light squares. You could develop it to d2 to support the b2-b4 push, or (after cxd5) to e3, as you're not likely to move the e-pawn very soon.

As most system openings, it is not really a bad opening. But you're giving away the initiative White has - essentially, you're playing with Black all the time.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Glorfindel provides an excellent answer, especially the light square strategy.

I would also suggest that playing the KIA, the proper course is to exchange the dark square Bishops, with Bg5, Qd2, and Bh6 and to attack on the Kingside. The variation which the Kingside attack is most powerful is when White advances the e pawn instead of the c pawn.

Dunnington's book "The Ultimate King's Indian Attack" suggests that if you plan on the Queenside attack, the Bishop is best left on c1 and moved to b2 or a3 after the pawn expansion. John Hall's "Modern King's Indian Attack" does not even mention Queenside play.

---
Tags: opening
---


title: On-line live analysis board?

text:
# Question
Title: On-line live analysis board?
Here is the situation. I have a friend with whom I very much like to discuss chess (our games, other games etc.). We are not living in the same country, so we discuss chess on-line. During our on-line discussions, we often, of course, need a chessboard. Usually, we use our wooden chessboards (which we see through our computer cameras), but this is inconvenient, as it causes synchronization difficulties.

My question is: Is there a site or a chess program with a chessboard which both my distant friend and me could see and alter, in such a way that every change in position is simultaneously shown to him and to me. In other words, something like a "live analysis board". If we were at the same place, we would have a chessboard on which we would analyze a game. He could alter the position, and I would see it, and vice versa. Now, I need the same thing, just on-line. Does anybody use something similar and/or has a suggestion?

I hope my description above is enough to understand what I mean. Obviously, my English is far from perfect, but I hope it will do.

Finally, I would like to stress that I am NOT asking for a suggestion for a site for PLAYING chess, but for ANALYZING games and discussing different positions.

Any suggestion would be appreciated. Thanks!

# Answer
After trying out several options, I have to say that I find the study tool on lichess by far and away the best.

It is intuitive, very easy to use, and the features are fantastic. For me, the most important features are the trivial way of importing previously annotated games (unlike with FICS, for example), the fact that all the analysis (variations, comments, arrows and highlighted squares) are saved and can be re-examined later, and all the comments from other users are also saved (which is very convenient). On top of all that, it's free (you only need to register).

You can learn more about the study tool here. I highly recommend trying it out (as well as lichess in general).
> 3 votes

# Answer
Chess.com has an analysis board meant for doing analysis with other people. But its available only for premium members. Also I am unsure if it has voice support in built when doing the analysis.

For the free alternative, its worth to look at FICS- It has a very cool feature for analysis called "examine", that combined with "mexamine" will give you exactly what you are looking for. Along with this, you could just setup a skype or gtalk (replace your fav free voip program here) for chatting with voice when you are examining the game. You could use Babaschess the free and best FICS client available.
> 5 votes

# Answer
You can use software for remotely accessing your friend's computer. He could run a program displaying a chessboard on the screen and you could use your own mouse to move the mouse pointer on his screen. You will both be seeing his screen and both able to affect the board with the mouse.
> 4 votes

# Answer
You can do this on chess.com: see this tutorial.

You can also analyze together on ICC, but ICC costs money.

Most sites that let you play games will have some feature like this, if only because they would like to encourage coaches to give lessons online using their service.

Edit: according to Keshav's answer, apparently the chess.com analysis functionality is only available with a paid account.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, online-chess
---


# Question
Title: Is there any software that can be used for positional chess training?
I am looking for a software that would help me in improving my positional chess understanding. Is there any such software or website?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Perhaps an engine something like Chess Position Trainer, depending upon your requirements (and system).
There is some potential for an unexpected learning curve, at least within version 5.04.
That being said, it is noted as working in both Windows & Linux.

Komodo 8 also gets some recommendation.

Chessimo has at least one detractor, who showed a preference for Convekta, this latter offering both downloadable and online games (their online play permits Windows, iOS, Android, & Web Interface).

Basic Positional Ideas "...*is a supplementary program \[that\] can only be run if \[*sic*\] Fritz 8*...". The description indicates that the program is for learning "...*\[how\] to achieve the desired position on your board*...".
The use of Fritz indicates that it should run on Windows, but that you might need Wine in order to run it within a Linux environment.

---
Tags: engines, software, positional-play
---


title: Ideal move in this situation

text:
# Question
Title: Ideal move in this situation
https://en.lichess.org/training/5571

Why is White knight to f5 not an ideal move in this situation? As far as I can see, unless Black takes the white bishop with the rook, it's mate in 2.

# Answer
The puzzle is a mate in 3 starting with a rook check. After knight to f5, there is a mate in 4 on the board, so that line is a mate in 5.

Of course one forced mate is as good as another, but if you did want to differentiate between forced mates of different length, then an argument can be made that fewer moves is better. This is certainly how lichess does it in these puzzles, though it is certainly annoying if such a move is judged as a mistake. Sometimes you get an admonition that your move although good is not the best and that is less annoying though arguably also incorrect.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, problems
---


title: Chess engine - Losers variant

text:
# Question
Title: Chess engine - Losers variant
I often use the Pulsar engine to analyze my Atomic games for better play (post-mortem). I definitely learn something, since I am not as smart as Pulsar. I am interested in doing the same thing for Losers chess. Pulsar is not very good at Losers, but Sjeng is better at this variant.

I use both Pulsar and Sjeng under the WinBoard interface. Does anyone know of stronger engines that play Losers chess? I have Googled for several days, did not find any. Both Pulsar and Sjeng are free, but I would be willing to buy better software.

**PLEASE NOTE** Many sites have confusing terminology for variants. Losers chess is not the same as Suicide or Giveaway. In Losers chess, the King can be checkmated, and you must respond to check. This makes a big difference in the strategy for Losers chess compared to Suicide chess.

# Answer
I've never used it myself, but I believe that Wizard is a strong and free Loser's Chess engine. An undated reference table on the same website shows that Wizard used to be one of the strongest Losers engines on FICS - however, I understand that the creator passed away many years ago so it may be outdated.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The **WinBoard Alien GUI** is reputedly better suited to playing chess variants than the standard WinBoard is, but that's just an observation.

As to engines that play Losers Chess within a WinBoard environment, it seems that the answer is unfortunately no: Sjeng seems to be the strongest of these (within context), though at least OliThink seems likely to give you a greater challenge than you might from get Pulsar.
The results of several competitions (w/ environment data included) in Losers Chess (each with some changes in competing engines involved) are posted at the ImmortalChess forum ("*Losers tournament*" contains the pertinent tables, while the third & fourth pages of that thread contain two tables for their "*Suicide chess tournament*" from which to infer Nebiyu's possible strength by comparison).

Sequenced in accordance with the engines' *normalized* mean averages of those tournaments:

1. Sjeng 11.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.885416(7)
2. Olithink 2.2.1 \[OliPow\] ***note A*** . . . . . . . . . 0.5625(0)
3. Pulsar 2009-9b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.411458(3)
4. Gerbil 02 ***note B*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3541(6)
5. KKF 2.6.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.31708(3)
6. Nebiyu 1.41 ***notes C.x*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNDEF. *(0.275(+), **est.**)*
7. PyChess ***note D*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNDEF.

---

**Notes:**

* **A:** multiple other versions of OliThink 2.2.1 (in addition to those in the normalized list's link) can be had elsewhere (at the bottom, in the “Older versions:” section).
* **B:** Gerbil ver.s 01 & 02 "...*come with a separate executable for loser's chess*...".
* **C:** Nebiyu Alien has many additional \[user defined\] .ini files available as a collective package or individually.
* **C.1:** Nebiyu can play Losers Chess, if you edit the winboard.ini (after which, “*With -W (w17)* \[in the command line option\] *losers chess it works fine...*”).
* **C.2:** Note that Nebiyu might be “*...playing atomic losers chess.*” (later attested *to the contrary* by another).
* **D:** PyChess wasn't one of the competitors, but can play Losers Chess, though it might be too weak an engine (in context of Losers Chess) to consider modifying for this purpose.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, chess-variants, losing-chess
---


# Question
Title: Is computer chess exhibiting the predicted "draw death"?
At various times, even going back 100 years or more, people have been predicting the "draw death" of chess meaning that top players will get so good that every game will be a draw.

In the 1984 World Championship, this prediction seemed to be coming true when the players drew an exhausting 40 times. There was even one stretch in that match when 16 games were drawn in a row.

Now, that computers have exceeded human ability in chess, are they drawing more or less than top human players? Are they exhibiting draw death?

# Answer
For what it's worth, here are the rates of decisive games of the TCEC seasons 4 'til 8 superfinals. Season 4 is a bit of an outlier (maybe a rule change?), but after that the percentage of decisive games drops consistently.

Season 4: 10/48 = 20%

Season 5: 18/48 = 37%

Season 6: 19/64 = 30%

Season 7: 11/64 = 17%

Season 8: 11/100 = 11%

Arguably at an even higher level are the games in correspondence chess which are played with engine assistance. I'm too lazy to count all the decisive games in the recent decades of the correspondence world championships, but in 2003 the rate of decisive games was 32% while in 2013 (two games still running) the rate has declined to 12%.

2003: 34/105 = 32%

2013: 17/134 = 12%

These numbers indicate that there is a draw death in chess, somewhere north of 3200+ Elo.
> 15 votes

---
Tags: engines, draw, computer-chess
---


title: How do I install SCID Chess on a Mac?

text:
# Question
Title: How do I install SCID Chess on a Mac?
I tried to download SCID for Mac and when I downloaded the latest version, I got a scid-src.zip. When I extracted this, I get a bunch of folders and source files. How do I launch this application? I see no launcher file.

Thank you, Sean

# Answer
> 3 votes
I don't think SCID supports Mac OSX officially. The files you have are raw sources, which you'll need to compile with TCL. Why not try a newer (and better) SCID alternative?

Download SCID vs PC

http://scidvspc.sourceforge.net

# Answer
> 3 votes
You probably downloaded the Windows version.
The Mac version can be downloaded here: http://scidvspc.sourceforge.net/#toc3
The name (ScidvsMac-4.16-ElCap.dmg) probably means that you need El Capitan (the latest Mac OS X version) to run it.

---
Tags: scid, macos
---


title: Was Paul Morphy a slow player?

text:
# Question
Title: Was Paul Morphy a slow player?
In Milan Vidmar's book Goldene Schachzeiten he writes that the brilliant Paul Morphy was known to be an extraordinarily slow player, who would probably have had a hard life if time control were part of the chess battle.

I was shocked to read this because earlier I had always read that Morphy was an exceptionally fast player. Can anyone explain this controversy with access to reliable sources?

# Answer
> 4 votes
My item here does not "explain the controversy", but for a contemporary tournament comment concerning Morphy, see top of page 90 here: https://archive.org/details/bookoffirstameri00fisk

From the First American Chess Congress book, quoting an article in The Chess Monthly:

> Mr. Morphy is rapid in his moves and quick in his combinations, his time on any move never having reached a quarter of an hour; Mr. Paulsen is exceedingly slow, some of his moves having occupied more than an hour and several in succession having exceeded thirty minutes.

On page 246 and 248, specific listings of moves longer than 5 minutes for two of the Morphy-Paulsen games are given, and a similar comment on page 255.

# Answer
> 3 votes
This 1860 book seems to have anecdotal evidence on the "fast" side of the argument:

"Mr Morphy is a most fascinating player for those looking on, and there is always a crowd around his board whenever he is *en lutte* with an opponent. His attention is not by any means riveted on the game and he makes his moves with a speed approaching rapidity."

"Thus says Lowenthal in the Era: We have great pleasure in announcing that Mr Morphy has arrived in London and has met with a most enthusiastic reception from the members of the St George's Club, where he paid a visit last Wednesday and played several excellent games. The prompt visit of this great player to England betokens his great anxiety to give the players of Europe an opportunity of encountering him. His powers as a Chess player have not in any degree been exaggerated. The quickness with which he forms and carries out his combinations is truly surprising. He possesses also another important quality, that of perfect coolness and self possession."

# Answer
> 0 votes
"fast" and "slow" are relative. In Emanuel Lasker's day they had more time per move (average) than Bobby Fischer and he, in turn, had more than today's players.

In Morphy's day the 12' for one critical move was noted because he generally played about 3' per move and 12' was his maximum. David Bronstein once took an hour on his first move. So, YES, Morphy played fast. So did, Fischer and Karpov and Anand.

---
Tags: history, time-management, morphy
---


# Question
Title: Sufficient mating material, less a king?
As an extension to this question about can a rook and knight *without a king* stalemate a opposing king, and the traditional minimum-mating-material question, I had a puzzle question:

What are the minimum combinations of material (without a king) required to forcibly mate an opposing king?

* R + R/Q is clearly sufficient
* R + N + N/B maybe, as an extension from the above stalemate question

On the other hand, there are some sets that fail without a king:

* B(w) + B(b) (but 3 bishops should work, so long as one is on a different color)

# Answer
> 4 votes
Assuming opponent has no pieces:

1. 4 or more knights
2. 4 or more bishops, at least 2 per side
3. At least 2 pawns, but it also depends on where the pawns are
4. 2 or more major pieces
5. Queen and a minor piece
6. Rook and 2 minor pieces
7. 4 minor pieces
8. Pawn+Minor pieces/2 Minor Pieces(depending on where the pawn is or a major piece

If opponent have pieces:

1. Queen(maybe rook)+Minor Piece vs 1 pawn
2. Queen(maybe rook)+2 pawns vs Rook+Bishop+Pawn
3. Q+R vs Rook and bishop or 2 minor pieces(for most positions)

---
Tags: checkmate, material
---


# Question
Title: When should black make the cxd4 move in French?
```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5

```

Following the structures with black pawn on c5, there is a tension in the center. When does black usually decide to take the d4 pawn, what is usually the trigger?

# Answer
Generally speaking, resolving tension helps the defender. White is the defender as far as the d4 square is concerned so Black should not aim to play c5xd4 unless he gains some follow-up advantage by doing so. One such advantage might be access to the b4 square for a knight or bishop after the reply c3xd4.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Adding to what TheMathemagician said, sometimes you will find that your c5 restricts your position, such as blocking your dark squared bishop. If, for instance, you prefer to have a bishop on c5, you might want to think about capturing on d4 just to get access to that square.

Similarly, the c5 pawn could restrict a Rook on the c-file. If you want to use that file to the full potential, you will eventually have to open it with a capture.

Of course, there are also cases where the capture is practically forced due to your c5 pawn being attacked twice, especially if white goes for a b4 push.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The trigger for me is having nothing else useful to do. At some point you need to develop your dark-square bishop and castle. Moving the bishop only to then have your opponent release the tension wastes a tempo.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, french-defense
---


title: Pawn structure books

text:
# Question
Title: Pawn structure books
Which book is better for a 1700-1800 player?

* *Pawn Power in Chess* by Hans Kmoch (originally *Die Kunst der Bauernführung*, 1956)
* *Pawn Structure Chess* by Andrew Soltis
* *Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide* by Mauricio Flores Rios, or
* *The Power Of Pawns* by Jörg Hickl.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I would take a look at *The Art of the Middle Game* by Keres and Kotov. It is the only book I know of which devotes serious attention to pawn structure in a way that goes beyond opening development.

If you liked *My System* you might also check out *Chess Praxis* (also by Nimzowitch). It isn't on pawn structure specifically, but details Nimzowitch's theory of Prophylaxis, covering pawn structure in the process of doing so. It's a good follow up to *My System*.

As to the books in your question I've heard great things about *Pawn Power in Chess*, but haven't read it myself so can only report second hand.

# Answer
> 1 votes
If you are talking about strategy and positional play (pawn structures included) why don't you try one or both of

* Aron Nimzowitsch. *My System* (originally in German: *Mein System*), 1925,
* Mark Dvoretsky. *Strategic Play*. School of Excellence: 3. Olms, 2002, 3rd ed 2008. ISBN 978-3-283-00418-7

These books have been tested by time. The best chess players were reading them when they were at your level.

Moreover, it's better to start with 'classic' materials and then move to something that truly suits your taste, like maybe one of those books you mentioned.

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


# Question
Title: How do strong players know opening ideas, plans, etc?
A scenario that already happened many times. "GM X" comes out with this new book on "Defense Y" and this book becomes an instant classic for its lucid, clear explanations of the Defense's main themes, ideas, tactical motifs, etc. etc. Assuming that chess knowledge is learned from books, and that there was no previous such book on "Defense Y", how did "GM X" learn all these ideas, plans, etc? Did he learn by himself, playing and analyzing game after game played with "Defense Y", then got all his conclusions about the opening plans? Is there some secret "oral transmission of knowledge" among strong players, GMs, etc. so that other GMs told him what the plans are? Or else?

# Answer
This kind of book is usually a work of synthesis. The author looks at the available games and takes notice of the various plans employed. It is a matter of noticing and making notes and then writing up a synopsis. An opening book can be written without prior personal experience with this opening. One can also discover a new plan, either by one's own thinking or by looking at the way an engine plays.

Sometimes ideas are transmitted orally. Bologan's book on the King's Indian Defense is by his own admission written on the basis of the notes he took while being tutored by his guru Lanka.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Adding to user3456's answer.

The GM also uses ideas from other openings with similar positions. The most famous is from a Fischer game. He found the opening trap from a Russian magazine. The trap is similar to the same trap in the Pirc, the Philidor, Ruy Lopez. Alekhine has played the same trap in his games. There are earlier games which have similar attacking techniques.

The GMs also provide the wrong information.

```
[Title "Uschold-Wallinger corr. 1985"]
[StartPly "24"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Qxd4 Nf6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. Qh4 d6 9. O-O-O Be6 10. Bd3 h6 11. Rhe1 Qd7 12. Bb5 O-O-O? 13. Qa4! Nd5 14. Rxd5 hxg5 15. Nd4

```

Black's twelfth move was suggested by theory as the best move. Larsen rated the position as unclear and Suetin said it was roughly even. These evaluations were based from positions they have seen before. This game proved that this pictacular position was an exception to their general knowledge.

Note: I'm not getting the title and startply tags to work correctly. Would someone kindly fix this.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Invariably the choice of opening lines is predicated on the GM's experience with the line and having played it for a good amount of his formative career. You'd be a fool to write a book on an opening based on research only. Playing experience has much to do with it and is probably the dominant aspect of it. I would not buy an opening book from someone who plays 1 d4 about the White Side of the Sicilian. But a book on the French written by (the now deceased, God rest his soul) Victor Korchnoi would get some buzz.
> 2 votes

# Answer
GMs are human and sometimes forget or mix up things, but they make errors like that far less than the rest of humankind. Opening preparation can be aimed at being ready for a particular opponent or tournament situation. Sometimes they prepare something for one event and don't get to use it, so it sits on the shelf until another time when it can be used.

It was said that Dutch GM Jan Timman never played his opening preparations, but all the work he had done inspired him to play something good.
> 0 votes

# Answer
A grandmaster often writes a book when he has a "Eureka" moment. The main moves and ideas of a particular opening were known to him and others beforehand, but he has a special theme and emphasis from which to view the opening in a new way. After he publishes the book, others adopt his "lens" and it becomes known as "his" opening.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, defense
---


# Question
Title: King's indian attack vs defense relationship
Sorry for my chess ignorance. I'm organizing my understanding of openings and I thought it would be nice to know if there was a reason why the King's Indian Defense is called almost the same as King's Indian Attack.

I know, KIA is a system that works for many things black may do... and KID isn't according to wiki, it's a opening.

But it seems like the KID is the symmetrical counterpart for black of the KIA, indeed, g6 mimics g3, Nf6 mimics Nf3, the same with Bg7 and Bg2 and possibly e5 and d6 mimicking e4 and d3.

On a related note: Can black do a system analogous to KIA? Is it KID?

# Answer
> 5 votes
They are indeed similar in some ways; as you have noted, the kingside structure that gives the variations their names are identical to each other, and there are some similar themes, such as a kingside attack.

A comparison between them provides a great example of the general difference between White openings and Black openings. Black in the King's Indian Defense has to be very precise and constantly runs the risk of falling one move behind White with potentially disastrous consequences. On the other hand, because White started with the advantage of the first move, when he plays an initially restrained setup like the King's Indian Attack, all he is doing is ceding some of that first-move advantage, and the game does not balance on a knife-edge as much (until maybe later!).

For this reason the two openings proceed along quite different paths, and expertise in one does not necessarily translate to the other.

(To answer the nomenclature question: *Indian* in chess opening terminology tends to indicate a fianchettoed bishop (one on g2, g7, b2, or b7); the *King's* part means that the fianchettoed bishop is the one on the kingside; and Black openings tend to be *Defenses* while White openings can be *Attacks*.)

# Answer
> 2 votes
These two are not symmetrical for at least two reasons:

In the KIA, the obligatory move is e2-e4, because otherwise the opening will not be called the KIA. But there are ways to play the KID without e7-e5, but with c7-c5 instead.

White must play both d2-d4 and c2-c4 for the opening to be called the KID, but in the KIA Black may play c7-c6, or d7-d6 and it is still the KIA.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The King's Indian *Defense* is played by Black. The King's Indian *Attack* is a variation of the same opening played by White, because he has an extra move.

Black plays the "defense" because he wants to turn the tables on White by strongly controlling the center, particularly the black squared diagonals, at whatever cost to his development. With the first move, White can "have his cake and eat it too," strongly controlling the center, *without* neglecting development.

Some people dislike either the defense or the attack because it is "slow," and they want a faster paced game.

---
Tags: opening, kings-indian, kings-indian-attack
---


# Question
Title: Do you get an extra turn when you promote your pawn?
If you promote a pawn do you get a second move to move it out of danger? Or do you still only get the promotion as your move and it becomes the opponents move?

# Answer
> Once you have promoted your pawn do you get a second move to move it out of danger?

No.

> Or do you still only get the promotion as your move and it becomes the opponents move?

Yes.

From the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 3.7.e When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival.

There is no discussion of extra turns.
> 17 votes

# Answer
NO. You move the pawn to the eighth rank, promote it to a piece, and then your turn ends.

What confuses some people is that the "promotion" is a second action, which *feels* like a second turn. So they wrongly remember getting a second "turn."
> 4 votes

---
Tags: rules, pawn-promotion
---


# Question
Title: Why is the g3 and Bg2 set up so strong vs the Dutch?
Why is the g3 and Bg2 plan so strong vs the Dutch? For example, in other main openings (KID, Gruenfeld, Queen's Gambit, Queen's Indian) it's just an alternative to the "classical" systems, those with no early Kingside fianchetto. A strong one maybe, but an alternative. In the Dutch, it seems that if White wants to get an advantage in the opening he can do it only with this set up. Nf3, g3 and Bg2.

# Answer
The g3 and Bg2 setup is strong defensively and strong offensively. White wants to play e4 to challenge the f5 pawn and Black's kingside white square complex. g3 and Bg2 is one of the best ways to support e4 with Nd2/c3 and Qc2 along with defending the king.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Optimal piece setup in openings are determined by pawn structures. If you compare the common pawn structures of the openings KID, Gruenfeld, Queen's Gambit, Queen's Indian with the Dutch you will notice a substantial difference: The existence of the black f5-pawn and white's pawn on e2 rather than e4. The black pawn structure of Stonewall Dutch is usualy c6-d5-e6-f5 whereas the pawn structure of Leningrad Dutch is f5-e6-d6 (and c5 or c6 depending on circumstance). I will limit the answer to the Stonewall Dutch to be more precise however this should also be applicable to other openings of Dutch flavor.

Examining the stonewall formation following the principle of optimal piece activity - that is all pieces should be placed where they are most active - we can easily see that the white-squared bishop would not be placed actively on anywhere but g2. The only comparison could be with the d3-square (we can eliminate other squares quickly: c4 impossible, e2 too passive having little or no perspective).

Comparing the d3 and g2 squares the important difference is the bishop on d3 targets the kingside and g2 targets the queenside. We know for a fact that Black plans to play on the kingside which means her/his pieces will be placed on or near to the kingside. Following the principle of "attack your opponent's weaker spot/side" we see that bishop on d3 will not make much sense as it will, so to speak, "bite on granite".

Moreover, the bishop on g2 has multiple purposes: Putting pressure over the long diagonal and adding an extra defense for the king. In chess a piece is most useful when it is both attacking and defending, so g2 is not only the optimal square for the white-squared bishop on Dutch openings. It is the only square that actually makes sense.
> 5 votes

# Answer
The fianchetto of the light squared bishop is a "double barreled pistol" against the Dutch.

It is strong defensively against Black's king side attack. It is strong offensively in the center.

Most games resolve themselves into a "race." Here, the issue is can White get a winning position in the center before Black's king side attack breaks through?

The fianchetto is particularly good in the Dutch defense race. In the other games, Black is stronger in the center and weaker on the king side, so the advantage is less pronounced.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, 1.d4, fianchetto, dutch-defense
---


# Question
Title: What is the idea behind 10.h3 in the Scotch Four Knights
Kramnik introduced this idea in a couple of his games against Aroninan, but I am struggling to justify such a slow move in a rather open position:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Bd3 d5 8. exd5 cxd5 9. O-O O-O 10. h3

```

Is there any other idea besides preparing Qf3 and avoiding Bg4?

# Answer
> 7 votes
Bg4 could be annoying to meet in this position for a few reasons:

1. It would force white to move the queen to an awkward square, play f3 opening the g1-a7 diagonal or play the passive Ne2.
2. White would prefer not to trade light squared bishops (with Be2) here as Bc8 is black's worse piece.
3. Ne2, Qd2 and f3 all allow Bh5 with the idea of Bg6 essentially forcing a trade of black's bad bishop

# Answer
> 2 votes
You're making it harder for black to make his bishop a good piece that does work. To accomplish that objective you have to make that move right then (timing being an important factor here) whereas other improving moves like Re1 or Qf3 can be played then or a few moves in the future. If black played 9. Bg4 instead of castling white could get a nice tempo and misplace a black piece with 10. Re1+. Also in some future lines h3 can get rid of the tactical threat of back rank mate.

Whether there is a better improving move than that I can't tell you since I don't play the scotch, but that seems to be the logic behind 10. h3

# Answer
> 1 votes
White has a decided positional advantage in Black's broken up queen side. In order to get this, he had to give Black a free, open game.

White now wants to "close" the position somewhat by denying the square g4 to Black's bishop and knight. Black's compensation for his weak pawns is his "piece play" and White wants to reduce that "compensation."

---
Tags: opening, scotch-game
---


# Question
Title: How to play for a win with White without fighting for an opening advantage
I know that there are practical methods of playing for a win with White without bothering with an opening advantage. In Kasparov's multivolume work on his predecessors Bent Larsen is described as someone who excelled at building complex playable positions without attention to opening advantage. It was enough for him that the position held enough complexity to make for a hard battle.

Presumably, this kind of playing is easier than fighting for an advantage. My question is about the reason why opening books focus only on finding an advantage for white rather than make life simipler for the reader and show how to obtain a good promising position with equal chances using the White pieces as a means of forcing one's will.

In my earlier question in this vein there was a lot of controversy over the value of winning versus drawing, which I find amazing because people don't seem to value draw as an outcome of a game of chess. So here I ask a similar question that is focused on winning rather than drawing but without fighting for the so called opening advantage. Compare Advice on how to draw with White

# Answer
One way to play for a win without seeking an opening advantage is to play a *system opening*. In this answer, I recommended the English Botvinnik System to a player struggling against the Sicilian.

A system opening is where one player develops their pieces to the same squares and has similar plans available no matter what their opponent does.

System openings have the advantage of saving you clock time and giving you a position that you are familiar with, hence allowing you to play for a win.

The problem with system openings is that they ignore the opponent's play and you tend to play with a mind that is half closed. That is, you may miss interesting moves that take advantage of an opponent's mistakes. This is why system openings are not objectively 'the best', i.e. they don't give a theoretical opening advantage.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Bent Larsen played somewhat off-beat stuff in the opening, a pseudo-hypermodern style. This reeks of playing for an imbalance in the position and playing to those imbalances. He knew his strengths and weaknesses. Remember: it is your understanding of a position's imbalances and your derivation of a good plan put up against your opponent's understanding that decides games, not evaluations given by a GM in the latest Informant. A position that a GM says "white has an advantage" but you cannot fathom it, is no advantage.
> 4 votes

# Answer
"This kind of playing is easier than fighting for an advantage." *For Bent Larsen.*

In his own way, Larsen was fighting for an opening advantage, of a kind that suited him, and was not obvious to most of us. (Larsen was just one level below world champion.)

The textbooks teach more conventional ways of seeking an opening advantage, for those of us (most) who are *not* "Bent Larsen."
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory
---


# Question
Title: In the Queen's Gambit Declined, after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6, what is the difference between playing 3. Nc3 and 3. Nf3?
Here are Chessbase's statistics after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 :

* 1. Nc3 - N=116,000 - W=58.2% - Av=2152 - Perf=2176
* 1. Nf3 - N=54,000 - W=60.3% - Av=2239 - Perf=2264

.

* N = The number of games played
* W = White's score in %
* Av = The average rating of players playing White
* Perf = The average performance rating of players playing White

.

So clearly 3. Nc3 is two times more popular than 3. Nf3. But 3. Nf3 has a better score (though if we calculate Perf minus Av we find +24 for 3. Nc3 and +25 for 3. Nf3, which is pretty close).

.

There are four things you should know:

Firstly, I am an extremely positional player, I don't like sharp and crazy games full of tactics. I would prefer the move which in average leads to the most solid, positional, slow, closed, strategic and quiet positions. I don't know which move that would be.

Secondly, as White, I always develop my King's Knight to f3, not to e2. This is a plus for 3. Nf3, since if I'm going to develop it there anyway I might as well do it right away on the third move.

Thirdly, I like playing (as White) the Exchange Variation (of the Queen's Gambit Declined) very much. Not with Ne2, f3, e4. I play it with Nf3 and a minority attack on the Queenside. This is a plus for 3. Nc3, since it's impossible to get a good position in the Exchange Variation if you begin with 3. Nf3 which loses a tempo.

And lastly, against the Slav, after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6, I prefer to play 3. Nf3 over 3. Nc3, because I heard that 3. Nf3 was much more solid and quiet, and that 3. Nc3 can lead to very sharp positions. For example: 3... e5!? looks sharp and crazy, it's possible after 3. Nc3 but not after 3. Nf3. This is maybe a plus for 3. Nf3, since if I already play 3. Nf3 against 2... c6 maybe this means I should also play it against 2... e6.

# Answer
> 5 votes
> In the Queen's Gambit Declined, after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6, what is the difference between playing 3. Nc3 and 3. Nf3?

With the `3.Nf3` move order your opponent can obtain a favorable position, almost entirely destroying your advantage.

Here is a small example:

```
[Title "Black dodges the Exchange variation"]
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.cxd5 ( 5.Bg5 O-O 6.cxd5 Nxd5! ) 5...exd5 6.Bg5 c6 7.Qc2 ( 7.e3 Bf5! ) 7...g6! 8.e4!? ( 8.e3 Bf5! ) 8...dxe4 ( 8...Nxe4? 10.Bxe7! ) 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Qxe4 Kf8!? 11.Bc4 Kg7 12.O-O Re8 13.Qf4 Be6 14.Bxe6 Rxe6 15.Rfe1 Qd6! 16.Qxd6 Rxd6 17.Re8 Rd8 18.Rxd8 Bxd8 19.Re1 Nd7=

```

With the `3.Nc3` move order, you are on the correct path towards the Exchange variation, **but Black has a choice to sharpen the game.** He could play `3...c6` offering you the *Marshall attack*, and even if you decline the offer and try to steer into the Exchange line, he could play `...dxc4` ( immediately or in the next move ) sharpening the game. Do not forget that Black may decide to play `...Bb4` entering the *Nimzo-Indian defense* which leads to open, dynamic play in most cases.

Be aware that you can not dodge sharp battles with the `Nc3` move order, but it is the only correct path to a solid Exchange variation for White.

> Firstly, I am an extremely positional player, I don't like sharp and crazy games full of tactics. I would prefer the move which in average leads to the most solid, positional, slow, closed, strategic and quiet positions. I don't know which move that would be.

You can't achieve what you ask for 100%, since **Black has a say too.** The best you can achieve is "healthy compromise" -\> you can get a positional battle **without crazy tactical sparks**, but the game will **still be dynamic and sharp**.

> Secondly, as White, I always develop my King's Knight to f3, not to e2. This is a plus for 3. Nf3, since if I'm going to develop it there anyway I might as well do it right away on the third move.

With the `3.Nc3` move order you can just play `Nf3` anytime you want. The point is that you have a choice, that is all...

> Thirdly, I like playing (as White) the Exchange Variation (of the Queen's Gambit Declined) very much. Not with Ne2, f3, e4. I play it with Nf3 and a minority attack on the Queenside. This is a plus for 3. Nc3, since it's impossible to get a good position in the Exchange Variation if you begin with 3. Nf3 which loses a tempo.

Again, the only correct path towards the **solid** Exchange variation is with `3.Nc3` move order. You can choose between `Ne2` and `Nf3`, it is a matter of taste, but know that `Ne2` is a **critical line for Black** in the Exchange variation.

> And lastly, against the Slav, after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6, I prefer to play 3. Nf3 over 3. Nc3, because I heard that 3. Nf3 was much more solid and quiet, and that 3. Nc3 can lead to very sharp positions. For example: 3... e5!? looks sharp and crazy, it's possible after 3. Nc3 but not after 3. Nf3. This is maybe a plus for 3. Nf3, since if I already play 3. Nf3 against 2... c6 maybe this means I should also play it against 2... e6.

Against the Slav move order, you have time before playing `3.Nc3` as he can't respond with a fast `...Bf5` **so I would make an exception there and play `3.Nf3`** to rule out any sharp play.

Still, **I would go for other quiet lines against the Slav**, instead of trying to enter the Exchange variation of the QGD. You should consult opening manual to see if there is a **safe transposition**, otherwise you might get tricked into an inferior position. This should not be a problem as far as I remember, since there are lots of quiet lines in the Slav for White that suit your style.

## SUMMARY:

Against QGD play `Nc3` and enter your favorite line, but against the Slav stop early sharp lines with `Nf3`, and do not attempt to transpose into the Exchange variation of the QGD. Instead, head for the lines with `Qc2` or similar, these will suit your style.

If you have further questions leave a comment. Good luck and best regards.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I'm going to address your issues in the order that I think are most relevant to your opening choice.

> Thirdly, I like playing (as White) the Exchange Variation (of the Queen's Gambit Declined) very much. Not with Ne2, f3, e4. I play it with Nf3 and a minority attack on the Queenside. This is a plus for 3. Nc3, since it's impossible to get a good position in the Exchange Variation if you begin with 3. Nf3 which loses a tempo.

This points 3. Nc3. If you like playing a specific variation, you should choose the move order which allows you to go into it. I'm not entirely sure that 3. Nf3 loses a full tempo, but if you prefer the Exchange after Nc3 to after Nf3 you should go with it.

> Firstly, I am an extremely positional player, I don't like sharp and crazy games full of tactics. I would prefer the move which in average leads to the most solid, positional, slow, closed, strategic and quiet positions. I don't know which move that would be.

After specific openings which you like, your style is the second most important consideration. Fortunately, here both choices lead into your style.

> Secondly, as White, I always develop my King's Knight to f3, not to e2. This is a plus for 3. Nf3, since if I'm going to develop it there anyway I might as well do it right away on the third move.

This doesn't really matter. Counterpoint: do you ever put the queen's knight anywhere other than c3? You know where it wants to go as well.

> And lastly, against the Slav, after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6, I prefer to play 3. Nf3 over 3. Nc3, because I heard that 3. Nf3 was much more solid and quiet, and that 3. Nc3 can lead to very sharp positions. For example: 3... e5!? looks sharp and crazy, it's possible after 3. Nc3 but not after 3. Nf3. This is maybe a plus for 3. Nf3, since if I already play 3. Nf3 against 2... c6 maybe this means I should also play it against 2... e6.

This is irrelevant except for some minor possible cross-knowledge after transpositions (3... e6 in the 2... c6 line and 3... c6 in the 2... e6 line). The Slav and QGD structures are very different and homogenizing which knight you move first is not something that should take a priority.

I think all this points to 3. Nc3 so that you can go into the Exchange with the variations that you prefer.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Nf3 leads to a more standard queen's pawn game, and White keeps the initiative longer.

Nc3 allows Black to pin the knight with Bb5, which would lead into a Nimzoindian game. That's a line favored by aggressive Black players, especially since Black may be able to double White's c pawns.

Here's an example of what I mean about Nc3: (Black won.)

---
Tags: opening, theory, positional-play, queens-gambit, 1.d4
---


# Question
Title: What plan should I have followed in this particular position?
I played a game today where I feel that I had a nice positional advantage (the computer supports my opinion) but I only managed to draw it in the end. This is the position that I consider to be critical:

```
[fen "2bq1r2/1r1np1kp/pp4p1/2pP1pP1/2P1NQ2/3B3P/PP3P2/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

I am playing White. Here Black played has just played ...f5 and my following moves were Ng3 and h4 (after Rf7). I still had some advantage at that point according to the computer but I lost it a couple of moves later after some inaccuracies. **What plan should I have followed? What are White ideas to win in this position?**

# Answer
> 7 votes
Black is very weak on the black squares, on the e file, his e pawn is very weak and his knight and bishop are short of good squares because of his cramped position.

You should try and get your knight to f4 and double your rooks on the e file. I would start with Nc3. This also helps against Black's obvious plan to undermine your center and give himself more space with b5. You may need to play a4 at some stage to control b5 but your immediate priority should be to double on the e file. Once you control the e file you want to either win his e pawn or invade on the e file.

At the same time your queen can exert more control over black squares in his position, either from h6 or maybe along the long diagonal from b2 or c3.

# Answer
> 1 votes
As stated, White is clearly better here, but it's hard to say if White can force a win in the long run against best play. I like the idea with Nc3 in Brian Towers response a lot, but I'm not sure the idea outlined in that answer is enough to win by itself.

I think that you should combine different ideas. As suggested, working on the h-file is not something to scoff at. Combine a pawn march to h6 with a well-timed Qc3, and Black is completely tied down.

Use pressure on the e-file to restrict Black even further. Play a4 at the right time to prevent counterplay; or play a3 followed by b4 to break up Black's pawn structure on the queenside! As long as a black pawn is on e7, it will be very difficult to coordinate Black's pieces to deal with the resulting pressure.

The more I look at it, the more I like the a3-b4 idea. It's hard to see how Black copes with the pressure. Black may be forced to give up the e7 pawn for nothing.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You should try for a breakthrough on the h file. You will eventually play h5, but you might want to move your king to g2 and double rooks on the file before you push the pawn. Your pieces have better lateral mobility than Black's, which is why you should be thinking of moving your rooks to one end of the board, and finding a way to break through.

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


# Question
Title: Which piece should I move and where should I move it when playing against black in chess when I have the first move of the game?
What is the first piece I should move as a novice chess player when beginning the game on the white side as a defensive strategy?

# Answer
> 3 votes
There is no magical move that will solve your opening problems. But if you learn **opening principles** you can find the correct moves for solving your problems your own.

I recommend you to read this: http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-principles-of-the-opening

I also found this video quite entertaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNO9KCloLRE

Also check these **opening traps**: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_chess\_traps

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you want to play "defensively" as White, start with 1. Nf3. a) This develops a piece. b) It delays moving a pawn, and gives Black a chance to "commit" first. c) It prevents Black from playing e5 without further preparation. d) It starts preparing for castling king side.

Your next move is to move a pawn, probably g3. Then move the light squared bishop to g2. Then you can castle, O-O, with a maximally secure king side, protected by both a knight and a bishop.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It depends.There are tons of openings and tons of variations that arise from them. So you may want to learn openings first to know what and what you might be comfortable with. Check out http://www.chessfiles.com/openings.html for openings and variations. They are available in PGN format as well if you want to use it with a GUI. Have fun

# Answer
> -1 votes
I have a strategy that works like this:

```
G1F3
B1C3
H2H4
A2A4
H1H3
A1A3
E2E4
D2D4
F1E2
C1D2

```

Hope this helps.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, beginner
---


title: How to learn e4 e5 as black?

text:
# Question
Title: How to learn e4 e5 as black?
I'm about 1800 FIDE and I wanted to incorporate e4 e5 to my repertoire as black, however, as soon as i started studying it, it became clear to me that its one of the most complex openings to prepare.

So can you guide me to the right approach in learning this opening? What are the best resources? Where can i learn the ideas instead of just memorizing lines? Do you have an tips regarding this opening? And who are the best practitioners or e4 e5?

much appreciated!

# Answer
> 5 votes
There are a lot of good resources on 1. e4 e5 lines. I would recommend you combine some study of an up-to-date theoretical work (Bologan's two books, Black Weapons, and Bologan's Ruy Lopez are very good, and all you would need for a long time) with going through some games. For example, if you want to get a good feel for where your pieces belong and typical maneuvering in closed Ruy Lopez positions, going through Karpov's games as Black in these lines can teach you a lot.

Ultimately, you are going to have to memorize some sharp lines. Many of the gambits played in the Romantic era in chess come after 1.e4 e5, and it is simply not possible to play these positions correctly without learning some theory. The good news is that Black usually has a number of sound options against White's sharper tries.

The big advantage of 1.e4 e5 over all other defenses to 1.e4 is that once you learn the various gambits and deviations (Scotch, Vienna, Ponziani, etc.), you have a choice among a large number of completely sound Ruy Lopez systems with Black, all of which are eminently playable, many of which are quite different from each other, and all of which give you chances to play for a win. This is why many of the top players use 1...e5 as their main defense to 1.e4. It is a great opening to choose for the long term, because if you get bored with one Ruy Lopez system you can just learn another.

# Answer
> 1 votes
One useful strategy of learning any opening, be it 1.e4 e5 or any other system, is to read books, study games and play games. Having said this, I would say that up until Elo 2300, opening theory is less important compared to skills in endgame and middlegame. If you want to get a good return on investment of your time, I would recommend studying Queen endgames, Rook endgames and all other endgames. As for openings, 1.e4 e5 is a massive opening system. There are other opening systems you could consider that will be easier to learn and use in practice. Since it seems that you do not have a routine in learning new opening systems, starting with 1.e4 e5 seems to be a risky choice.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The move 1 ..., e5 is the most popular answer to 1 e4 together with the Sicilian defence 1 ..., c5 and leads to as many different variations. If you decide to use it, you need to be prepared to meet:

* the moves 2. d4 or 2. Bc4 (actually rare occurrences),
* the King's gambit 2. f4,
* the Vienna game 2. Nc3,
* the natural 2. Nf3 that leads after 2 ..., Nc6 either to the Spanish 3. Bb5 or the Italian 3. Bc4 or the Scottish 3. d4 (not to mention some less popular continuations), all of them rich of different continuations and ideas.

In order to cut on the number of continuations that need to be "understood" (I don't like to use the term "memorized" as a mechanical memorization of moves is never useful in chess) you may choose variations that limit the number of white choices. E.g. after the King's gambit 1. e4 e5 2. f4 you may opt for 2. ..., d5 (which has also the advantage of likely annoying white) or 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 (Philidor) or Nf6 (Russian) to avoid the vastness of the Spanish/Italian systems.

It is true that up to about master level the opening preparation is not so relevant as mastering middle- and endgames techniques, but moving in a known land is always better than navigating randomly, I think. Also remember that "it is always better to know well a not-so-good opening then to know not-so-well a good opening" (as a grandmaster once told me).

Anyway, in order to learn a vast and complex system of openings like those arising from 1 e4, e5 (or any other) one should

* read books which care more about explaining plans and ideas than listing variations and analysis,
* replay (grand)master games where the continuations of choice were employed, better if the games are commented by the player themselves or other valid GMs,
* play, play, play.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There are two main lines after 1. e4 e5. 2. Nf3.

The "easy" line is 2... Nf6 (Petroff's Defense), which leads to a symmetrical position.

The more complicated line is 2.... Nc6 (Ruy Lopez). It is the most common, and studied opening in chess, and if you want to rise above 1800, it will help to be at least "conversant" in it, if only to know what to avoid.

There are many variations; pick at least one or two and study it thoroughly, as former World Champion J.R. Capablanca did. There are many books and other resources on the Ruy.

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


# Question
Title: Why is Kh8 the best move in this position for black?
Why is, according to Stockfish (depth = 28), Kh8 the best move here for black?

This is a position from a game between Emanuel Lasker and Wilhelm Steinitz, 1896.

Nb6 seems to be the natural move in this position. At least to me (an intermediate player).

Yes, there is a check at Qb3 or Bc4. But what's the big deal? The b7 pawn is protected if Nb6 is played. Bc4 is also not an option then.

It's not a machine-like move. Steinitz played this, not in this move, but in the next move. Kh8 is not even among my \[an intermediate player :-( \] candidate moves.

This is the first time I am posting in stack exchange. Please excuse the bad formatting of the question. I don't know how to add PGN here so that you guys can go through the game move by move.

# Answer
> 12 votes
If you don't play ...Kh8, then for every move you consider making, you're going to have to worry about what happens if White responds Qb3+ or Bc4+. If you're analyzing variations, you always have to take into account that White might play Qb3+ on the fourth move of the sequence or something. This means that

1. You're going to have to spend extra time on the clock every move checking those checks.
2. You might mess up and miss one of those times when one of the checks works, and get a disastrous result.
3. Even if you don't mess up, natural moves that you might want to play might fail due to one of the checks, and you'll have to play a less nice move instead.
4. When White looks for tactics, he has built-in "hooks" to try to build combinations around. If there's some other weakness in your position at some point, there's a decent chance some double-attack tactics will become possible, for example.

Of course, Stockfish only really cares about the last two, but even that's enough. If you can afford the tempo, it's a really good idea to just get the king out of the way and completely quash all four problems for the whole future of the game.

# Answer
> 7 votes
> Kh8 is not even among my ... candidate moves

Oh dear!

Kh8 and Kh1 (for white) are automatic moves when the f pawn has moved, sometimes even just before moving the f pawn.

The reason is that often moving the f pawn, apart from creating a weakness, is the precursor to some kind of king side attack. Even if you are not immediately intending a king side attack the weakness on f2/f7 leaves you vulnerable to an annoying Zwischenzug or tactic along the vulnerable diagonal. Moving the king into the corner is going to be needed sooner or later. Therefore it is a useful waiting move before making a more committal move which reveals your intentions.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Well there's a threat of Qb3+ winning a pawn. As Black has no counterplay he can't really let that go. Nb6 is possible of course but the knight has no real influence on the c4/d5 squares and a later a4 by White would be awkward. Black's position is already difficult. He needs to get his light-squared bishop onto the h5-e8 diagonal and find a square for his other bishop (f8?) so he can stick the c8 knight on e7 and play for f5 or d5 to free his game. Kh8 is just so he can implement that plan without being hit by an annoying check. I don't know the game, I'm going to look up what actually happened now.

Edit: Hehe, Steinitz played Nb6 and c5 and drew (although lucky to survive on the K-side IMO)

# Answer
> 1 votes
The reason why the move Kh8 is valuable is because it reduces White's tactical potential.

Black only wants to defend b7 *if he has to*. So, if White commits to Qb3, then Black will defend the pawn.

Another way to look at it is that Black needs to defend the b-pawn and he has two basic ways to do that: move the king or use a piece to defend the pawn. Moving a piece to defend the pawn is not necessarily useful, but the move Kh8 will always be useful, therefore it is the preferable move.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Kh8 has two important functions.

It takes the king off the open white diagonal, where he can be checked by Bc4, or "forked" by Qb3.

It clears the square g8 for Rg8 to defend the g pawn.

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: Can playing too much chess affect your performance?
I've noticed a pattern with myself and I'd like to know if someone else can relate. I have a score which fluctuates between 1200-1300 on chess.com and I've noticed that after a great day of defeating opponents (some even higher rated than me by as much as 200) I tend to play inaccurately for the next couple or days or so. It's like some days I'm really playing good and even giving the computer a hard time and other days I just mess everything from openings to mid-games. Is this common? I play a lot of online chess regularly and have noticed this fluctuation from time to time.

# Answer
> 3 votes
At least for some players, yes, although how many games, the type of games, and in what period of time, causes burn out, I would assume varies from player to player. I've been reading "Bent Larsen's Best Games," and he mentions how he was drained after playing several consecutive events, but after a month's vacation, came back refreshed.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The fluctuation within a range but never breaking out of the range means you have hit a ceiling and are flatlining. Think of it like the stock martet whereby you are consolidating, and take this opportunity to study and change your way of thinking about the opening, middle-game, and endgame. Get outside your comfort zone. read a difficult chess book that speaks to a full class above your current skill, etc., etc., and apply what you learn.

Change.

Note: you'll probably get worse short-term doing this, but hang in there.

---
Tags: blunder, performance
---


title: Undrawable Openings?

text:
# Question
Title: Undrawable Openings?
What are some openings that are extremely difficult to obtain a draw in? I have been recently playing openings like the Ruy Lopez and facing a lot of draws.

# Answer
If you play more aggressively and choose sharper lines, your draw rate will go down - though not necessarily the way you want it to.

Generally gambit lines are sharp, whether you are giving or taking the pawn. So you could play the King's Gambit instead of the Ruy Lopez.

Another possibility is to play the Italian Game and choose the Evans Gambit against 3…Bc5 and 4.Ng5 against 3.Nf6.

But although the Ruy Lopez is a rather strategic opening, a high draw rate in your games is more likely connected to your style of play. If you keep the tension, i.e. not going for exchanges, and try to build a strong kingside attack, you should get a lot of decisive games even in the Ruy.
> 3 votes

# Answer
To avoid draws, pick openings that offer a lot of imbalances. Most striking is any gambit. Of course most openings are ultimately refuted but playing the kings gambit, evans gambit, smith morra, and etc will work for a while. Plus, a lot of gambits are refuted in a way where the opposing side simply equalises in a drawish game. If it is desired to play openings that are sound or close to sound, then playing openings such as the scotch, sicilian, King's Indian, Dutch (leningrad), french, caro kann, grunfeld, queens gambit, etc. What ever you do, avoid symmetrical openings like the exchange slav or the exchange french. It is important to note that the opening may not be to blame, it may very well be your playing style. Perhaps you play too safe. Put in some exchange sacrifices, attack, gambit a pawn for lines or initiative, and fight.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The most "undrawable" openings (against you) are the ones that you play the best. If you are getting too many draws from your openings, you do not know them well enough to punish your opponents for their (inevitable) mistakes. (This advice does not apply if you e.g. continually get advantageous middle games, and then lose the advantage in the endgame; then you should work on your endgame.)

Former world champion J.R. Capablanca played only a handful of openings, played them time and time again, and played them perfectly. He could catch the tiniest error by an opponent, usually over the board, and if not then, in a *post mortem* for the next time. This was usually enough for him to win, since he was (in his time) the world's best endgame player.

He had a legendary undefeated streak for eight years. When he was finally defeated, it was because his opponents used openings he was unfamiliar with.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, tactics
---


# Question
Title: How should black react if white plays "defensively"?
I have heard that when White makes defensive moves, Black should take the center and be aggressive.

In such a case, is there a problem with Black making defensive moves too? Is that a bad idea?

# Answer
Being aggressive and taking the center are two different things.

Regarding being aggressive, if White is making defensive moves, it's OK for Black to do the same as long as each move has a strong purpose. For example, Black might fix flaws in his position by repositioning poorly placed pieces or securing his King. If he instead chooses to attack and there are *exploitable* flaws, his attack can he blunted.

For example, if Black's King is exposed yet he attacked, White would have the opportunity to gain a tempo by moving an endangered piece and checking the King. This is like giving White two moves in a row on the area of the board where the attack is happening. Or, worse, White could play a Zwischenzug. Both these things things make calculation difficult. Better to first move the King to a safer square.

Taking the center, which is less aggressive, is rarely a bad idea, as long as one can hold onto the real estate. Taking the center is good preparation for attack and gives one the flexibility in choosing how the attack should be conducted.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Yes, when your opponent makes defensive and passive moves, you should try to take initiative and attack, **no matter what color you are playing**.

Because White make move first, in very first stage of game they have *initative*, and Black must counteract against it, so they technically *defense*, but after opening this advantage becomes a little significant.
> 4 votes

# Answer
There is only one difference between black and white: The first move(no, the color does not count :p).

This means that white *starts with* the initiative. They can make threats first and black should respond. At the moment white lets the initiative go(that is, allows black to make threats to which they must respond) the colors have "switched"(no, this does not mean the pieces actually change color. It means their state have changed).

The initiative in chess is very important. You feel it everytime you wish that "if only it was my turn to move" :).
> 4 votes

# Answer
If white his playing defensively, he is creating a "vacuum."

This is a vacuum you should fill. Often, but not always, this is done by playing aggressively.
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: Which chess openings trade the most pieces?
The goal here, albeit heterodox, is to bring the game into a position with few pieces on the board, where yourself as a player has forced the other to trade all your major pieces, leaving both in a position that is likely to draw.

Which chess openings illustrate this strategy best?

# Answer
in the gurgenidze variation of the accelerated dragon, all pieces are exchanged off except white's two bishops, and typically a bishop and a knight for black. white has a nice space advantage, but blacks structure is very solid and he should be able to draw. however, there are no winning chances for black.
> 2 votes

# Answer
For black, I would recommend the Queen's Gambit accepted against d4 and the Scandinavian Defense against e4. Sure, it may only be one pawn, but you'll immediately notice how much your position opens up with just that trade. For white, you can play e4, and openings you might like may include the Ruy Lopez exchange, which is drawish from the outset. However, when many people say they are trying to play for a draw, they lack aggression and make defensive mistakes, which can make it quite easy to lose in the end. One one hand, you will learn something with whatever opening repertoire you happen to choose. On the other hand, this most likely isn't going to be where you'll spend the rest of your chess career.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I recommend the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez. The "classic game" for this opening was played in 1914 between world champion Emmanuel Lasker and future world champion J.R. Capablanca.

It leads to an early exchange of queens, and hence an early endgame. In "Chess Fundamentals," Capablanca noted that immediately after the queen exchange, "The reader should note that if all the pieces were exchanged, White would be practically a pawn ahead and therefore have a won game."

Black's compensation for this was the "Bishop pair," which was not enough in this game.
> 1 votes

# Answer
For Black 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5! to clear the c and d files.

Another idea 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5 to invite 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8+.

Similarly 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 to invite 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, trading
---


title: Is It Good Or Bad To Trade Too Much?

text:
# Question
Title: Is It Good Or Bad To Trade Too Much?
One aspect of my style in chess is that I like to trade a lot.

Is trading too much bad?

# Answer
Trading *for the sake of trading* is bound to be in your opponent's favour more often than not.

Generally speaking, *recapturing* often activates the piece that can capture back. Consider two rooks on an open file, both protected by another, pretty passive rook on the a-file. The side that trades loses control of the open file and is stuck with the a-file rook, but the sides that recaptures gets to move his previously passive rook from the a-file to the open file.

Also, if you delay trading, you *keep options open*. As long as you still have several options, the opponent has to keep defences up against all of them, but as soon as you actually choose one (make the trade), that releases tension and usually frees up the game of the opponent a bit. Don't release tension without a reason.

Worst, if the opponent *knows* that you like to trade, he may offer trades that work in his favour positionally, and you'll go for them. That will get you a bad position very quickly.

A trade is a way to change the nature of the position. Only go for trades that change the position in your favour, otherwise keeping the opponent guessing is better.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Trading pieces off the board being good or bad usually depends on the position, and there are a variety of situations to consider that could lead to a positional advantage.

1) Try to avoid trades when behind in material. If you're behind 3 points in material, the more pieces that come off the board, the more crippling that disadvantage comes. The more pieces on the board, the more you have to work with to create discovered attacks, forks, skewers, pins etc. On the flip side, try to force trades when you're ahead in material, as the more pieces comes off the board, the more you will disarm your opponents ability to fight back.

The image above is from one of my games that I'm currently playing online in correspondence with myself as the white pieces. Here I've just captured a pawn with my last queen move. My goal is to pick off as many pawns as I can, and if an opportunity to force the trading of the queens and rooks comes off the table comes I will take it. Being up an entire rook is a big advantage, in an end game position where black has no rook or queen, white can easily use his rook and king to pick off pawns for an easy end game win.

2) It's always a great idea to trade off a bad minor piece for your opponent's good pieces. For example, consider this board:

In this position black has what's considered to be a bad light squared bishop, the reason being the pawns. All of blacks pawns are locked in on light squares, getting in the way of the black bishop. Where as whites bishop is very very good, because it has plenty of targets to go after and capture. Together with careful maneuvering of both players kings white has better chances to win this end game. So trading the bishops off for the white player is a bad decision, where as if the bishops could come off the board, it would be better for black.

3) Closed versus open games

In general when you have a closed game, knights are better than bishops. And bishops are usually better on an open game. The pawns will dictate whether the board is open or closed. If the pawns are set up in a way that closes down the diagonals, disallowing the bishops from slicing through the board, then it's closed. If you can capture a knight with a bishop in a closed game, that will usually help your position. The image below is an example of an open game.

4) Monster Piece

It's a very good idea to trade off a piece that is dominating your position. Take this example where white has it's knight firmly placed in the d5 square.

This knight can comfortably attack the majority of the board for the black army. If black can remove such a threat by trading off his own knight, it would improve the situation for him.

5) Cramped Positions

If your army is hemmed in by your own pawns, preventing the natural development of your pieces towards the center of the board then it's a great idea to trade off pieces to give your pieces more options to attack and defend.

Looking at the image above, we can see that black is experiencing a cramped position to the extreme! Only blacks queen and knight has some options for movement, where as if you look at white's game it's much easier to play. White's bishop can slice through the position and attack key defending pawns, the white knight can jump in at all any time, both rooks are connected and could easily be swung over to the A1 file to apply even more pressure. White should keep the tension, where as black should to try to trade and release the pressure.

Those are some of the major themes and ideas that I follow in my own games. Of course there is always exceptions and the position of the pawns generally drive which decisions are good and bad.

I hope this helps!
> 8 votes

# Answer
It mostly depends on your position, and who is ahead in material. Generally, if you're behind in material, you should avoid even trades. But if you're ahead in material, or even and you have some positional advantages, trading can be a good thing.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Basically you want to trade from a position of strength. If you have, say, a pawn advantage, you will want to trade piece.

Another time to trade is when you have positional advantage. What you do is to keep build the advantage and keep pressure on the opponent. To relieve the pressure, your opponent will offer trades. Then you should trade, *but only on your terms,* e.g. where your recaptures keep the pressure on, or where you have a good knight against a bad bishop, or the bishop pair against a bishop and knight.

On the other hand, you don't want to trade when your opponent is ahead in material, or his recapture will place one of his pieces in a dominant position. In that case, keep more pieces on the board, and hope to find "salvation in complexity."
> 0 votes

# Answer
Besides the pure chess reasoning others have given,

One other thing is player strength at different phase of the game. If you are good at endgame and you know you opponent isn't, then you would benefit from a simplified position.

Also to consider is clock. If opponent is under time pressure, don't trade. Keep the game complex and wait for a blunder.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: theory, strategy, pieces, style
---


title: Putting pressure on pawns

text:
# Question
Title: Putting pressure on pawns
Why is it important to develop your pieces to put "pressure" on opponent's pawn(s)? I hear this a lot from YouTube videos in which experienced chess players commenting as the game develops. It's "just" a pawn! Why design a tactic or strategy around a pawn?

# Answer
Attacking a piece is often not very useful: the piece does not feel any pressure but just moves away. A pawn won't escape so easily, so attacking a pawn forces the opponent's pieces to defend it and thus limits their freedom. There are a few possible gains of an attack on a pawn: the opponent cannot get enough pieces to defend the pawn so you immediately win the pawn, or his pieces are so badly placed defending the pawn that you can gain advantage on another part of the board, or the pawn has to move and leave weak squares on both sides of it because it cannot ever again protect the squares that it attacked a move ago.
> 5 votes

# Answer
In chess, pawns are the only pieces that cannot move backwards and the ones that have the less mobility. Thus, while in the opening a knight or bishop could simply retreat or be exchanged, a pawn usually has not so many options.

This is specially relevant in the opening. Consider for example the moves:

`1.e4 e5 2.Bc4`

In this position, black has may good moves: `Nf6`, `Nc6` being the best, `Be7`, `Bc5`, `Bb4` and `d6` also being playable. Now, consider the moves:

`1.e4 e5 2.Nf3`

Now the `e5` pawn is attacked and it black sees his options severely restricted if he wants to defend it, only `Nc6` and `d6` being sensible in order to do so.

Another important reason is that sometimes the pieces are unable to defend the pawn. This usually happens in the endgame or late middlegame, where some material has been exchanged, but also in some opening variations. To defend the pawn and not lose it, he has to be advanced, leaving behind him weak squares. Around those weak squares a player may be able later in the game to infiltrate the enemy territory and achieve a winning position.
> 1 votes

# Answer
As a generality, you aren't going to win a good chess match with a singular, huge move that completely devastates your opponent. (If you do, they are not a worthwhile opponent and the playing level in question is novice.) Therefore, you need to coordinate attacks to be synchronized and cumulative. The more advanced the player, the more intricate and multi-faceted the attack. As your skill increases, you will start to use all of these minute details to your advantage, aspiring that they all add up to an insurmountable attack vector.

So, the more advanced you get, the more that these "tiny" things **really** matter.
> 0 votes

# Answer
First of all, the advantage of winning a pawn is usually enough to win the game (among good players). That's why they're worth attacking.

Second, pawns have the least mobility, that is the least ability to "run away." Their "tininess" also makes them the most vulnerable.

Third, because of one and two above, your opponent will (or at least should) make a major effort to defend pawns. In so doing, your opponent may create other (positional) advantages for you.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy, pawns
---