title: Is there a low-end ELO Deflation?

text:
# Question
Title: Is there a low-end ELO Deflation?
I've heard often about Elo Inflation among the top chess players, meaning that a player rated 2650 Elo nowadays is weaker compared to a player rated 2650 Elo player 10 years ago. I'm curious if there's an opposite phenomenon on the lower end of the Elo bell curve:

Is a 1500 Elo rated player nowadays stronger compared to a 1500 Elo rated player 10 years ago?

I have this 'feeling' based on my personal experience but no data to back it up.

Update: I'm referring to FIDE Elo ratings.

# Answer
> 4 votes
These questions of rating inflation/deflation over time are very tricky to answer objectively. It is very easy to find mid-range players who will say something like "My rating today is about 200 points lower than it was 10 years ago but I'm just as strong if not stronger \[spot the wishful thinking\] therefore there must have been rating deflation at my level during this period". Full disclosure: I'm one of those mid range players :-)

To get more objective views (I think definitive answers are another, more complicated, matter) you have to look at how many players were above a given level today and 10 years ago and perhaps also the percentage of players who were above a given level today and 10 years ago.

That data is available via the FIDE rating website where it is possible to download rating data going back to 2001.

Here are the figures from the January 2019 and January 2009 lists:

**January 2019**
Players rated above 2650 = 109 (0.0335%)
Players rated above 2100 = 40940 (12.6%)
Players rated above 1500 = 224873 (69.1%)
Total rated players = 325306

**January 2009**
Players rated above 2650 = 75 (0.0756%)
Players rated above 2100 = 40044 (40.35%)
Players rated above 1500 = 98669 (99.4%)
Total rated players = 99232

Interpreting these figures is difficult, particularly the percentage ones.

If you just look at absolute values then there are a lot more players graded over 2650 today than 10 years ago and the same for players rated over 1500. This suggests rating inflation at both levels. I've also included values for players over 2100 because, intriguingly, these are almost unchanged.

If you look at percentage values then a much smaller percentage of players are rated over 2650 today than 10 years ago and the same for players rated over 1500. This would suggest a great deal of rating deflation at both 1500 and 2650 levels. The deflation is highest, however, at the 2100 level (out of the three levels I have looked at).

However, I think the percentage values are problematic. First if you look at the 1500 level 10 years ago there are only 563 players with ratings \<= 1500. I suspect that this is because the only FIDE rated tournaments for players below 1500 were tournaments like continental and world junior tournaments going down to levels as low as 1001.

By the way, the first player I can find to have had a rating just above 1500 was the Polish player Sebastian Kobus. His first rating was 1500 in January 2006. For 1000 it was Indian player Hakeem Nikhil with a rating of 1003 in September 2012. The first sub 1300 player was French player Michel Khechab with a rating of 1260 in September 2009.

There were, of course, a lot of players playing tournament chess whose strength was below 1500 but they were all playing nationally graded chess because there simply were no FIDE rated tournaments for players that weak outside the big FIDE championship tournaments. Those figures show that today over 30% of players have a FIDE rating of 1500 or below compared to just 0.6% 10 years ago.

*My tentative conclusion is that there has been some rating **inflation** at the level of 2650 and above because there has been a 45% increase in the number of players rated over 2650 which I think cannot be accounted for by increasing number of chess players.*

*I think there has been a lot of **deflation** in higher mid-ranges (typified by the 2100 figures) because there has been some increase in chess playing numbers which is not reflected in higher numbers at these levels.*

*At the lower mid-range (1500) I think the data is unreliable 10 years ago due to the very small number of tournaments open to players of these levels and so it isn't possible to draw any conclusions about this level.*

Regarding the data for players at the 2100 and 2650 levels I think this is reliable because I think FIDE rated tournaments were capturing most players at these levels.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I think most of the inflation-deflation debate is an excuse by formerly good players who have worsened or been surpassed by younger ones over time. I don't see any reason to believe that current 2650 ELO players are weaker than their predecessors.

On the lower part of the spectrum, though, you may have a point, as lower and lower ratings get allowed into the FIDE lists, but, if anything, this should create inflation, as 1400-ish rated players now get rating for defeating 1100s, who a few years ago would've been unrated.

In any case, I don't really know if a definite answer is possible

# Answer
> 2 votes
Elo inflation occurs when the player base increases which allows the top players to take more points from the bottom players. The top ratings in a rating system are highly dependent on the size of the player pool. If there were only 10 rated chess players, even magnus wouldn't be much higher than around 1800 with a default rating of 1200.

Ratings are used to compare people in the same pool, and comparing ratings from two different time periods are strictly different pools. In terms of pure ranking, a 2650 10 years ago would be higher up than a 2650 now, but it does not say anything about what would happen if they played each other. It could be the case that everybody got significantly better at chess in 10 years, so the 2650 player now would beat the 2650 10 years ago. It could also be the case that people didn't improve, so the 2650 player before would beat the 2650 player now.

For in the middle ratings, there's barely any rating inflation to begin with. 1500 is still higher than the default 1200 so it would be inflated over time. However it's nowhere near as exaggerated at the end of the ratings pools. Deflation only occurs on ratings below the default rating.

# Answer
> 0 votes
When two established players play a rated game there is a transfer of rating points from the loser to the winner. Elo deflation occurs when young players gain strength and rating points from other players and then lose interest and stop organised play. They gained rating points from the pool of established players and then departed. Eventually they drift off the ratings lists and the rating points go away.

---
Tags: elo, statistics
---


# Question
Title: How does engine strength scale with hardware?
Say I run Komodo on my 4-core machine. How much stronger would Komodo be if I used an 8-core machine? A 40-core machine? A 4000-core machine?

Is there a general relation for this? Also, does this scaling depend on which engine is used, and if so, why?

# Answer
Multicore is important for chess engines, but it doesn't scale forever.

* Up to certain depth, no matter how much hardware you have, you just don't have enough computational power
* Yes. Scaling is heavily implementation dependent. For example, a simple mutex would make multithread programming much easier (any decent programmer will agree here), but that'd also make the engine run much slower than another engine runs without mutex locking.
* 40 cores machine will play stronger than an 8-core machine, although it's hard to state how much. A 4000 core machine should also play stronger than a 40 core, but it's harder to justify the costs for smaller Elo improvement.
> 12 votes

# Answer
Partial answer: TCEC Stockfish plays with 43 cores and threads, while the so-called Redfish kitbitzing engine (which is basically Stockfish on stronger hardware) plays with 192 cores and 256 threads. Running at 4x the speed (as measured by nodes per second), Redfish is +50 elo stronger than TCEC Stockfish.

Partial answer #2: Komodo developer Larry Kaufmann writes here that -

> Komodo is rated 3423 CCRL Rapid on four cores, but will be playing on a 32 core Threadripper which should boost its Rapid rating to around 3600.

If each core contributes roughly the same to speed, then 32 cores is 8x the speed of the original, and that translates to about 180 elo. (Of course this makes it seem like Komodo scales better than Stockfish, but Stockfish is going from 43 to 192 cores which is much more firmly in the logarithmic part of the curve.)

Partial answer #3: the performance of Komodo 14 drops from +80 elo (2 threads vs 1 thread) to +4 elo (128 threads vs 64 threads). The performance of Stockfish 11 drops from +90 elo (2 threads vs 1 thread) to +14 elo (128 threads vs 64 threads). Source. In this range, the scaling looks pretty linear.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I didn't do the experiment but I think it should be something like

As @SmallChess said in his answer: required computational power grows exponentially and at a certain depth it would be just way too big.

for simpler position however it's not the case because the engine would've explored all the possibilities before reaching its full capacity (ie: maximum depth)
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines, software, depth
---


title: Help with mistakes

text:
# Question
Title: Help with mistakes
I (around 1700 on classical games on lichess) need advice on how to correct some mistakes I often make during the games, if possible, from a player with a Master title or higher.

I have noticed that during my games I tend to make the following:

-Hang pieces (usually pawns, but from time to time a piece of greater value).

-Capture a defended piece with a piece resulting in a disadvantageous exchange.

-Quite commonly make wrong assumptions of the nature of the game. For instance, thinking that after a move I can capture a pawn only to realize it is already defended or thinking that I am threatening checkmate with knight and queen (say on the 8th rank) when in fact, the queen cannot deliver it because the knight would not protect the queen when checking the king.

-Fail to see a tactic (a pattern easy to spot for me but I still omit it). In particular, some combinations in which a check made by my opponent makes the game turn into their favor.

-Sometimes I make a calculation mistake. I think this is due to my inability to play blindfold chess and see the variants in my head.

I know it is embarrassing to make these mistakes but I really need some advice from a player who has been there.

Plus, I also realize it is hard for me to follow everything that happens in the game. For instance, after a discovered attack, I sometimes miss it and if I realize, it happens by luck and very late. I feel like it should be easier for me to keep track of these things after 3 years playing chess quite seriously.

The conclusion I get from my games is that I should be more focused but I am missing the ability to not be overwhelmed by the changes caused by the pieces' moves (that I mentioned earlier).

Thanks very much for reading.

# Answer
OK, assuming you are still very young, then really, you need to do two more things: Study more tactics, AND read some books with interesting games without a board.

The first thing is obvious, but I recommend doing 50 per day, spending no more than two minutes on each problem...then look at the answer. I once helped a 38-year-old friend go from 1000 to 1850 on ICC in just three months by doing this. He stopped, and never went any higher. This is much harder to do than it seems, and requires a lot of time invested, but the immersion learning will pay off. I can also tell you that I have seen many 2000-2200 players, who are really not that strong at tactics, so this can be for everyone.

The reading games without a book (including all the sub-variations), I personally always loved Irving Chernev's "1000 Best Short Games of Chess". The games start out short, and go up to only 25 moves, and are all loaded with fun tactics. The only problem with this book is that, to this day, it is still only in descriptive notation. The goal of reading this book is to read the games, and REALLY keep the position in your head. You are not trying to analyze the game. When you are done, you play it over on a board and see how well you really kept it in your head.

If you are getting older, especially in your 40s and 50s and above, the above will help, but also, you may simply need more time to process the board. For example, pick a time control for "blitz" of 10 with 10 seconds increment, or play OTB tournament games. JUST yesterday, I had a 5-hour battery of mental tests at the doctor, and I can tell you that at my age (almost 58), I was simply MUCH slower than I was in my 20s and 30s.

My last suggestion comes from an esteemed source, and it almost seems crazy, but when starting to analyze (at least every few moves), look at every possible move you have on the board. You ARE NOT analyzing them. You are just looking at them for a split second because you will be amazed at what just briefly considering them will sometimes trigger in your mind. It is almost subconscious. When you are about to make your move, again, quickly, look at EVERY opponent reply. Of course, this is primarily for an OTB game with a lot more time than a blitz game. This practice might sound crazy, but this is the suggestion of none other than Arthur Yusupov (former top 10 in the world, three-time world-championship candidate, and one of the world's foremost trainers). He recommends this in the first volume of his 10-volume series when discussing why he has students do composed two-move mate problems.

At almost 58, I know that I now do not see the board as quickly, and miss things, and this last suggestion has been helping me A LOT.
> 7 votes

# Answer
People vary very much in their thinking. As well as visual thinking there is verbal thinking, kinesthetic thinking...An artist friend told me that when he looked at the board the important squares and pieces took on a slight glow. You are probably at least good at one style, so dont try to push a skill you haven't got. One thing that might help (at longer time limits) is to review every piece on the board and ask yourself why it went to that square. Strong players do this subconsciously. This will give you a listing of the important aspects of the board position. Try to group the pieces into "constellations", for example the attackers and defenders of a weak pawn. In psychology this is called "chunking".
> 4 votes

# Answer
All of the errors you describe are "short attention span" mistakes. That is a polite way to put it. A less polite way would be to say that you make simple blunders. Having identified what the problem is the next step is to find out what the underlying cause is and try and remedy that.

There are two obvious possibilities -

* Underlying psychological problems
* Bad chess habits

Underlying psychological problems could come from personal problems in your life. This could be stress, divorce, bereavement, bad job or work environment. When my mother died 20 years ago I had a period of about 6 months when my play was as you describe. I lost 70 or 80 rating points. When I recovered from her death my chess picked up again. Things like divorce, bereavement, relationship breakdown can take quite some time to recover from.

Psychological problems could also come from drugs you are taking. This could be medication which has bad side effects. My brother worked for a while in the tropics and took Larium, an anti-malarial drug, which had bad mental effects on him. Once he realized what was happening he found other ways to protect against malaria. Substance abuse can obviously also produce unwanted mental side effects. If you are taking drugs for any reason you should find out about all the possible effects.

If you don't have some underlying psychological problem that leaves "bad chess habits". You say you have a lichess rating of 1700. I bet that is not for playing long-play games.

How much blitz do you play? How much standard rate chess do you play? How much internet chess do you play? How much face-to-face, over-the-board chess do you play? Are you a member of a chess club?

My suggestion to you, if you are serious about fixing the problem, would be to give up internet chess completely for a year, stop playing blitz, join a chess club and play "proper" chess at a slow time control. Do that for a year and you should have a good chance of fixing your bad chess habits and become a much stronger player. When you then go back online the benefits should remain.
> 2 votes

# Answer
> Hang pieces (usually pawns, but from time to time a piece of greater value).

Pay more attention to the game.

> Capture a defended piece with a piece resulting in a disadvantageous exchange.

Well this is a bit more complicated . Before you capture think: Will I gain anything from the exchange?Can that piece move freely around the board or are there many squares which cannot go(for example in front and right or left of a pawn)? Does my piece im exchanging do something important? For example if your opponent threatens something with that piece then exchange it.

> Quite commonly make wrong assumptions of the nature of the game. For instance, thinking that after a move I can capture a pawn only to realize it is already defended or thinking that I am threatening checkmate with knight and queen (say on the 8th rank) when in fact, the queen cannot deliver it because the knight would not protect the queen when checking the king.

Become familiar with all the pieces and how they cooperate and you will see a big improvement.

> Fail to see a tactic (a pattern easy to spot for me but I still omit it). In particular, some combinations in which a check made by my opponent makes the game turn into their favor.

Train your tactics.Be cautious for in-between moves.We think that after I capture my opponent's bishop with my knight that he/she/it will capture my bishop.But not always!

> Sometimes I make a calculation mistake. I think this is due to my inability to play blindfold chess and see the variants in my head.

Place a chessboard next to you and play there the moves you think are worth considering.

> Plus, I also realize it is hard for me to follow everything that happens in the game. For instance, after a discovered attack, I sometimes miss it and if I realize, it happens by luck and very late. I feel like it should be easier for me to keep track of these things after 3 years playing chess quite seriously.

Be more focused and not only do your plans but follow your opponent's plan as well.

I wish I helped.See you in lichess.org.
> 1 votes

# Answer
At 1700 you should be missing tactics, but not at the level you describe.

You obviously need to get better at calculating and that is done by simply solving puzzles.

It seems to me you don't have any skin in your games. It is just an internet game (yawn). Try playing a live person in a tournament or something to get you more motivated to do better.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: psychology
---


title: Examples Of Unconventional Batteries

text:
# Question
Title: Examples Of Unconventional Batteries
I recently played a funny blitz game on Lichess as White in which an usual battery was formed.

```
[FEN ""]
[startply "25"]

1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. e4 Nxe5 4. Nf3 d6 5. Nxe5 dxe5 6. Qxd8+ Kxd8 7. Bc4 Bc5  8. Bxf7 Nf6 9. O-O Nxe4 10. Bb3 Nxf2 11. Rxf2 Rf8 12. Nc3 Bxf2+ 13. Kh1 Be1 14.  Bg5+ Ke8 15. Rxe1 Be6 16. Bxe6

```

Black preceded to play 13... Be1, unwittingly creating a battery for me with two pieces that had never moved before. I repeat, **a self-creating battery with two unmoved pieces forming the battery itself.** Quite funny indeed.

I define a battery in this case as “when one pieces hides in front in front of a queen, rook, or bishop, and that hiding piece moves/threatens to move with a threat from the unmoving piece, aka a discovered attack.”

Thus, batteries in the sense of something like Alekhine’s Gun are not in the picture here.

What are some examples of unconventional, i.e rare or uncommon to see in games, not typically played, or is there a general consensus of it being so, of such a battery from famous play under the set definition? The battery is not required to have been fired-just to have existed is enough. It doesn’t have to be a check. Threatening a piece, such as in my game, is optional.

Sorry of this comes across on too broad-I will edit the question in the morning if need be.

EDIT: In regards to my particular used definition of a "battery," given that it has a few meanings, I turn to an authoritive source: Tim Krabbe. See below.

```
[Title "The Asaba Battery, White plays and makes a draw, E. Asaba, 1980"]
[FEN "4b2k/3p3B/8/8/8/n6P/p2nP3/6RK w - - 0 1"]
 [startply "15"]

1. Bg8 d5 2. Bxd5 Bc6 3. Bxc6 Ndb1 4. Rg8+ Kh7 5. Be4+ Kh6 6. Rg6+ Kh5 7. Bd5 a1=Q 8. Bf7 Kh4 9. Kg2 Kh5 10. Kh1 Kh4 11. Kg2

```

This is from Tim Krabbey article "De Asaba-Batterij," which translates to "The Asaba Battery.".

The formation of the White rook and bishop is what is calls "The Asaba **Battery**."

The rook hides the bishop. The threat from White is, if Black moves their newfound queen, the hiding piece, the rook, moves, giving an attack to the Black king from the unmoving Bishop, aka a discovered attack.

Tim Krabbe calls and rook-bishop formation a battery, and the threat that this battery contains is the same as my chosen usage of battery for this question . Therefore, my usage of "battery" upolds; I have merely chosen one of it's many definitions to use for this questions.

In addition, many thanks to @itub in the comments for this. "The definition given by the Oxford Companion to Chess: "BATTERY, a problem term for one of the two kinds of ambush: a line-piece would command a line if another man of the same colour were moved off that line. Discovered checks arise from this kind of ambush, as shown in the Indian theme. Players occasionally use the word battery to describe doubled or tripled line-pieces; composers rarely use the word in this sense."

Alekhine's Gun is a battery of the second definition-doubling/tripling of similarly attack pieces on a rank, file, or diagonal. I am using "battery" in the sense of the discovered attacks of the first definition. This is why I stated earlier "Thus, batteries in the sense of something like Alekhine’s Gun are not in the picture here."

I hope that this clears up the confusion.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It is pretty common.

With your given stipulation, the battery can only happen with a pawn as the front piece or with an attacking queen or rook masked by a bishop, knight or king along the first rank.

This example of the latter is a very old theoretical line in the Danish double-gambit:

```
[FEN ""]
[startply "14"]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 d5 6. Bxd5 Nf6 7. Bxf7 Kxf7 8. Qxd8 Bb4

```

The Rh8-Bf8 battery is activated at once by Black to win the queen back and reach an equal endgame.

There are even more examples of the former, e.g. this miniature played multiple times in youth tournaments:

```
[FEN ""]
[startply "7"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nd4 4. Nxe5 Qg5 5. Nxf7 Qxg2 6. Rf1 Qxe4 7.Be2 Nf3#

```

4...Qg5 jumps into the Bc1-Pd2 battery.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Another famous example is Edward Lasker - George Alan Thomas, 1912. Most people remember it for the king hunt, but indeed the (non-castling) mating move is unleashing a king-rook battery.

```
[Title "Lasker-Thomas 1912"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "34"]
1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Bxf6 Bxf6 6. e4 fxe4 7. Nxe4 b6 8. Ne5 O-O 9. Bd3 Bb7 10. Qh5 Qe7 11. Qxh7+ Kxh7 12. Nxf6+ Kh6 13. Neg4+ Kg5 14. h4+ Kf4 15. g3+ Kf3 16. Be2+ Kg2 17. Rh2+ Kg1 18. Kd2# 1-0

```

---
Tags: famous-games, discovered-check
---


title: Spectacular queen sacrifice game

text:
# Question
Title: Spectacular queen sacrifice game
I once watched a famous chess game that I can't find anymore and maybe someone could help me find it.

The game I watched evolved somehow natural until one moment: player1 sacrifices its queen. The spectacularity in this move consists on the fact that from that point on player2 had only one possibility of moving every time player1 moved on its turn. The game evolves so that player2 is constantly kept in check until the player2 king reaches the other side of the table i.e. row 8. When the king reaches row 8 of the chess table, player1 checkmates player2.

Can anyone help me find this game? I once watched it online on YouTube explained and I was very impressed but somehow lost it. Maybe someone knows about this game based on this not very accurate description.

# Answer
> 34 votes
This does sound like the famous game between Edward Lasker (not the world champ) and George Alan Thomas.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Casual game"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "1912.10.29"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Edward Lasker"]
[Black "George Alan Thomas"]

1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Bxf6 Bxf6 6. e4
fxe4 7. Nxe4 b6 8. Ne5 O-O 9. Bd3 Bb7 10. Qh5 Qe7 11. Qxh7+
Kxh7 12. Nxf6+ Kh6 13. Neg4+ Kg5 14. h4+ Kf4 15. g3+ Kf3
16. Be2+ Kg2 17. Rh2+ Kg1 18. Kd2# 1-0

```

# Answer
> 8 votes
I just saw this question, and while someone came up with the game you were looking for, here is a game with what many consider THE most spectacular queen sacrifice ever. It is a positional sacrifice for two minors on move 12! I thought everyone might enjoy this.

If you do have never heard of Rashid "SuperNezh" Nezhmetdinov, despite never getting the GM title (mostly due to being unable to travel outside the Soviet Union), he won the Soviet championship 5 times. He had a lifetime plus of 4-1 against Mikhail Tal, and was Tal's second for the 1960 match against Botvinnik. In the 20 games he contested against world champions, he also had a plus score.

And here is what the greats said about him:

* "Nobody sees combinations like Rashid Nezhmetdinov." Mikhail Botvinnik
* Nezhmetdinov is "the greatest master of the initiative." Lev Polugaevsky
* "His games reveal the beauty of chess and make you love in chess not so much the points and high placings, but the wonderful harmony and elegance of this particular world." Mikhail Tal
* "Rashid Nezhmetdinov is a virtuoso of combinational chess." David Bronstein

Lastly, every player should see Lev Polugaevsky vs Rashid Nezhmetdinov, which is another incredible game with a queen sacrifice that is incredibly memorable.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1111459

```
    [Title "Rashid Nezhmetdinov-Oleg Chernikov, Rostov-on-Don, Chigorin Team Cup, 1962"]
    [FEN ""]

   1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Bc4 O-O 8. Bb3 Ng4 9. Qxg4 Nxd4 10. Qh4 Qa5 11. O-O Bf6 12. Qxf6 Ne2+ 13. Nxe2 exf6 14. Nc3 Re8 15. Nd5 Re6 16. Bd4 Kg7 17. Rad1 d6 18. Rd3 Bd7 19. Rf3 Bb5 20. Bc3 Qd8 21. Nxf6 Be2 22. Nxh7+ Kg8 23. Rh3 Re5 24. f4 Bxf1 25. Kxf1 Rc8 26. Bd4 b5 27. Ng5 Rc7 28. Bxf7+ Rxf7 29. Rh8+ Kxh8 30. Nxf7+ Kh7 31. Nxd8 Rxe4 32. Nc6 Rxf4+ 33. Ke2 1-0

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
There are plenty of games that fit the parametres you described, let's see if we get lucky!

```
    [Title "Polgar - Chilingriova"]
    [FEN ""]

    1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.O-O Bg7 5.c3 e5 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 Nxd4 8.Nxd4 cxd4 9.e5 Ne7 10.Bg5 O-O 11.Qxd4 Nc6 12.Qh4 Qb6 13.Nc3 Bxe5 14.Rae1 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Qxb5 16.Qh6 Qf5 17.Qxf8+ 1-0

```

```
    [Title "Segovia - Curbelo"]
    [FEN ""]

    1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bb3 Be7 8. Be3 O-O 9. Qe2 Bd7 10. O-O-O b5 11. a3 Qc7 12. Kb1 Nc6 13. g4 Rac8 14. f4 e5 15. Nxc6 Bxc6 16. g5 Nxe4 17. Nxe4 Bxe4 18. Rhg1 exf4 19. Bxf4 Bg6 20. h4 Rfe8 21. h5 Bxg5 22. hxg6 Rxe2 23. gxf7+ Kh8 24. Bxd6 Qc6 25. Rxg5 Rxc2 26. Be5 Rc1+ 27. Ka2 Qh6 28. Rxg7 Qxg7 29. Rxc1 Rf8 30. Rg1 Rxf7 31. Bxf7 1-0

```

```
    [Title "Nikitin - Stein"]
    [FEN ""]

     1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 O-O 5.Nf3 d6 6.O-O Nc6 7.d5 Na5 8.Nfd2 c6 9.Nc3 cxd5 10.cxd5 Bd7 11.b4 Qc7 12.bxa5 Qxc3 13.Nb3 Rfc8 14.Be3 Bb5 15.Bxa7 Rxa7 16.Rc1 Qxc1 17.Nxc1 Rxa5 18.Qd2 Ra4 19.Qe3 Kf8 20.Qb3 Ra5 21.Qb4 b6 22.Nb3 Rc4 23.Qd2 Ra8 24.Rc1 Ne4 25.Bxe4 Rxe4 26.e3 Rea4 27.Rc2 Bc4 28.Kg2 Bf6 29.f3 Kg7 30.e4 h5 31.h4 b5 32.Nc1 Ra3 33.Qf2 R8a4 34.Kh2 Rb4 35.Qd2 Rb1 36.Kg2 Ra4 37.Kh2 Rab4 38.Nd3 Bxd3 39.Qxd3 Rd4 40.Qe2 Rdd1 41.f4 Bd4 42.Qf3 b4 43.Re2 Rbc1 44.e5 Rc3 45.Qe4 Bc5 46.f5 Rd4 47.f6 exf6 48.exf6 Kxf6 49.Rf2+ Kg7 50.Qe7 Rxh4+ 51.Qxh4 Bxf2 52.Qxb4 Bxg3+ 53.Kg2 Be5 54.a4 Rc2+ 55.Kf3 g5 0-1

```

For more examples, check http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1022437

---
Tags: sacrifice, famous-games, identify-this
---


title: Checkmate in 7 moves?

text:
# Question
Title: Checkmate in 7 moves?
In the below chess position, the chess.com computer analysis says that there is a checkmate in 7 moves for Black, but I can't find the way. Can you help me find the solution? White's last move was Rxe7, which chess.com says is a blunder, allowing for the mate in 7.

# Answer
> 2 votes
You posted a different position after my comment and PhishMaster's answer.

As for the new position, yes it is mate in 7 starting with Rxc1+.

Possible continuations are:

1. Kd2 Rc2+ 2. Ke1 (if 2. Ke3 Re2++; if 2. Kd1 Nf3+ 3. Rd7 Rxd7++) Nf3+ 4. Rxf3 Bxf3 (threat is Rd1++) 5. Re8+ Rxe8 6. Kf1 Bg2+ 7. Kg1 Re1++
2. Kf2 Rc2+ 2. Kg1 (if 2. Ke1 or Ke3 see the other line above) Nf3+ 3. Rxf3 (3. Kh1 Rxh2++) Rd1+ 4. Rf1 Rg2+ 5. Kh1 Rxf1++

As I wrote above the mating patterns are not particularly pretty. It boils down (in the longer lines) to mating with two rooks, one on the second and one on the first rank. Also it is more like a mate in 5 as some of the moves are just white sacrificing a rook to prolong the mate.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Here is a solution to your question, since you changed the position, with the lines being on a board.

```
   [FEN "3r2k1/p3Rp1p/6p1/8/3nbP2/P1r3P1/P6P/2B1KR2 b - - 0 1"]

    1... Rxc1+ 2. Kd2 (2. Kf2 Rc2+ 3. Ke1 Nf3+ 4. Rxf3 Bxf3 5. Re8+ Rxe8+ 6. Kf1 Ree2 7. a4 Rc1#) 2... Rc2+ 3. Ke1 (3. Kd1 Nf3+ 4. Rd7 Rxd7#) 3... Nf3+ 4. Rxf3 Bxf3 5. Re8+ Rxe8+ 6. Kf1 Bg2+ 7. Kg1 Re1#

```

---
Tags: checkmate, positional-play
---


title: Who has the advantage in this position?

text:
# Question
Title: Who has the advantage in this position?
I was in a three%day turn bame, I played almost played a line that would have led me to this position. Black’s central pawns seem to be an advantage, although White being up the exchange scared me. Who has the advantage in this position, and why?

It is White’s turn.

# Answer
This position is not easy to assess.

Indeed, white has a rook, but black has a bishop and two pawns for it, which is roughly equal material-wise.

Also there are no open files, so white's rook do not have a straightforward way to enter black's position. The best white could currently do is to try to create counterplay against the pawn on e6 and create a blockade on the dark squares, preventing black from advancing the pawns. Since black does not have a dark squared bishop that should be reasonably easy to achieve.

As a long term plan, white can transfer his king to the queenside (e.g. to b2) and open some lines with g4, which does seem somewhat dangerous for black.

Still I think black is doing perfectly fine so far as the position is still closed, there are potential threats against g2 and the pawns are ready to run.

Overall I'd say the position is roughly equal (but interesting!).
> 9 votes

# Answer
I´d say Black has at least a draw. In case the queens get exchanged Black can bring his king to support e6 and if need be approach the king side to prevent a possible g4 break. He/she can bring their bishop to an active diagonal.

On the other hand white must be super creative to activate their rooks.

In case queens remain, other than the above ideas Black can sacrifice a pawn to have the bishop eye the g2 pawn. This together with pressure from g file by rook must be enough to keep White on check.

The position is rich in possibilities. Don't trust an engine on this! In practice Black has a more straightforward game to follow than White.
> 3 votes

# Answer
While the computer says it is still roughly equal, I would MUCH rather play black here.

After whatever move white makes, black will play Qf6 and e5 in the next two moves, and then I like the central pawns after Re8 (assuming white tries to hold them up at all, he will have to attack e5) and then f4. Later, black will also have the potential for playing against the white king with Rg8, h4, and eventually pushing the center forward creating real threats against the white king. White has no active plan to counter this.

This brings up an often-overlooked point that Tal clearly understood, and that is that there are practical problems in chess that go beyond analysis at home (now with computers). In this position, black has not even sacrificed anything, and it may well be equal between two computers, but this position is very difficult in practice for white.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: strategy, positional-play, advantage
---


title: Making the best use of a coach?

text:
# Question
Title: Making the best use of a coach?
Currently I pay for lessons, and I surely see value. I've gotten from the low 600s to being able to give USCF 1200s a run for their money. It's not much, but it makes me pretty happy.

But I feel like a lot of coaching sometimes is just random topics with a lack of structure. I usually bring 5-7 games to my coach and we go over them, followed by extra things I should study to improve my weaknesses. I also bring up stuff I have read, for example in *How to Reassess your Chess* to get clarification.

Is there anything more I can do to better utilize my coach?

Thanks!

# Answer
> 3 votes
Analysing one of your own games with a coach is one of the most important parts of work for a coach. To maximize the analyse-training effect you should always annotate your games before giving them to your coach. The reason for this is, that it makes it more easily for your coach to spot your weaknesses and therefore give you the right material to study. (very important if you don't live commentate all of your games in a meeting while going through them)

For your rating i would prefer a split of training time like this:

* 65% tactics
* 10% openings
* 15% endgames
* 10% positional & strategical plans

In the beginning this will often look some random topics with a lack of structure, but normally it isn't. (the percentage ratio will change when you get better)

From my coaching experience the book "How to Reassess your Chess" is far too complex and difficult to understand for your level. (i would leave it aside)

Also don't hesitate to ask your coach about topics you find uncomfortable. (e.g. how to play against this opening, how should i behave in positions like this one, etc.) -\> He will get a feeling in which topics you are good or need additional training.

For saving time you should do tactic puzzles always on paper/in your mind, because in tactic puzzles it often takes more time to set up the board than to find a solution.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I think you are making good use of your coach from the sound of it. Perhaps you are not studying the correct books for your rating. And you should be heavy on puzzles and basic endgames; if your coach hasn't pushed you toward that there may be reason for concern.

# Answer
> 3 votes
This question is old now, but thought I would chime in on how to find a good coach.

You wrote: "But I feel like a lot of coaching sometimes is just random topics with a lack of structure."

You do not say what the rating of your coach is, but that lack of structure is a major red flag, and the sign of a not-great coach. Long-time coaches/trainers have definite lesson plans that can be tailored to players of different strengths. If they are just winging it every lesson, that is a sign it is time for a new coach.

Another important factor is that while many people want a GM coach, most players do not need a GM to train them, however, most professional trainers do nothing but that for a living, and usually are at least FM strength. In fact, many FMs or IMs can be much better coaches than many GMs, who just wing it since they work hard to have well thought out lessons.

Lastly, there are MANY places online nowadays that you can find very professional coaches for as little as $25/hour since they live in countries where that is a decent rate, but ask a lot of questions about whether they have formal lesson plans or just wing it. You can get a sense about that.

Chess.com Coaches

Lastly, here is my own tip about getting stronger: I cannot recall a tournament game between 1600 players that I kibitzed the postmortem that did not have an obvious missed tactic. I suggest immersion in chess tactics as I will describe in the next paragraph. I once took a 38-year-old friend, so not a super-young mind, from 1000 to 1850 ICC in three months doing this. He then stopped, and never got any better.

I recommend trying to do 50 tactics problems per day, spending no more than two minutes per problem, from the following books (eventually, you can use other books too):

* “1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate”, 21st Century Edition by Fred Reinfeld
* “1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations”, 21st Century Edition by Fred Reinfeld

I know there are a lot of tactics books out there, but I love these two books because of how well they are laid out. You start with the mates book because the first chapter is queen sacrifices, so you have two huge hints: Mate, and give up the queen. I skip the last chapter on composed mates for now. As you are doing them, in pencil, mark each one with a number 1-5 as to how easy you found it, 5 being hard. You will read both books more than once. Again, try to do 50 per day. It is hard, but worth it.

I have been recommending this for over 35 years, but the method is very similar to the relatively new book "The Woodpecker Method", which was published in 2018.

---
Tags: strategy, study, coach
---


# Question
Title: What opening is recommended if white is only playing for a draw?
If in a tournament game, white is only aiming for a draw, what openings and strategies will be recommended for him? I guess that the answer may depend on the following different mindset for black:

1. Black is happy with a draw as well.
2. Black would love to win but can accept a draw.
3. Black must win.

I am aware of a related question but my questions seems to be different.

# Answer
The English Opening (1.c4) is excellent for pushing for a drawish line. There's not many risky/sharp lines in it.

The Reti Opening (1.Nf3) is also a good "safe" opening without too many sharp lines.

In both of these, *flexibility is key*.

These delay committing to either "wing pressure" with minor pieces or "center occupation" with pawns; white can adapt to whatever black throws out and *slow things down*, whether black wants to win or is looking for a draw themselves.

If black is looking for a win, the French Opening might be a possibility - most lines are fairly defensive (not all - *some are very sharp and should be avoided by white*) and can push said player into being so aggressive as to make a mistake that could even hand white an easy win.

**Note:** (suggested by @ATLPoly)

With both the Reti and the English, it is possible to play sharply with moves like f5. These aren't the best lines for black, but be warned that they are sharp and do require white (and black to a greater extent) to play accurately, even though the position is slightly in white's favor.
> 5 votes

# Answer
The best way to play for a draw as White is to stick to your main opening repertoire, only avoiding the sharpest lines where you are not sure of the latest analysis.

Playing an opening you know well prevents you from misshaps in the first phase of the game and arms you for the early middlegame. Moreover, if your repertoire is decent, it generally leads to equal or better positions for White, from where it will be easier for you to lead the game into dull waters (e.g. positions with symetrical pawn structures, mass exchanges, or forced lines leading to perpetual check).

A tactical line is not necessarily to be avoided. A common psychological trap is to avoid calculating any variation by fear of a calculation error, play passive moves, and drift surely and not-so-slowly into a lost position. If you stop yourself from using your capabilities (tactics, calculations), you diminish your own playing strength. Compared to a "normal" game, however, you can evaluate differently the positions reached in your calculations: even if you are slightly better, a perpetual is fine, a drawn endgame also.

Let's assume you are a 1.e4 player, for instance. If you go 1. c4 or 1.Nf3, you probably won't face any disaster in the opening, however after move 10 you will find yourself in unknown territory, in an equalish-but-with-a-lot-of-play-left position and with a lot of decisions ahead to make by yourself. Moreover, exchanges don't come for free in positional lines, if you aim for them you will often trade your good pieces and keep the worst ones.

On the other end, if you play your usual 1.e4, you can use your knowledge to navigate through the opening without huge mistakes and it is your opponent's job to make something special happen and create chances for himself.

He will probably refrain from the French for fear of the exchange varaition, or from 1...e5 because White can aim for liveless positions in, say, the 4 knights or the exchange Ruy Lopez. In case of a Caro-Kann, your usual line is probably not very risky for White, but you can also go for a Panov: isolani positions can get very sharp when White plays for an attack, but Black cannot do much to avoid simplifications if you simply play for d4-d5 and exchanges.

Against rarer stuff like Pirc, Scandinavian or Alekhine, your usual repertoire probably yield a small plus for White. If you go for it, you will be in a good position to force simplifications later in the game.

The tougher nut to crack, or rather to tame, of course, would be the fiery Sicilian. There you have a choice: if you are confident in your theoretical knowledge, you can prepare your opponent's usual main variation having in mind that all the equal-and-simple lines and all the perpetuals are okay for you. That makes White's preparation much easier actually. Or you could go for something solid like the c3-sicilian, where (as in the Panov) some games can get wild but that is merely when White goes for an attack. If you play in the center and look for simplifications, you will very often get them.

**TL;DR**

Don't change your very first moves, but adapt your play to your goal only when you start calculating lines at the end of the opening and in the early middlegame. Don't forget that it is much easier to force a draw from a slightly better position than from a slighty worse one.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The main ideas in playing for a draw are to exchange as many pieces as possible, and to avoid getting into a sharp opening. This simplifies the position and reduces the tendency of either side to blunder. For each case, some openings are suitable.

If black is OK with a draw, then **1. e4** is the best. The only risk of drawing the game here is getting a sharp opening in return (a Sicilian, for example), which your opponent won't do if they are playing for a draw.

If your opponent is playing for a win, then open with **1. d4**. A typical reply is a QGD, or perhaps a Slav defense. In both cases, to draw you would go for an exchange variation:

### QGD: Exchange Variation

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5

```

### Slav Defense: Exchange Variation

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. cxd5

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
It is a long-held opinion of the Soviets (now Russians) that when you play for a draw, you are really playing for a loss.

You should play normal chess, and trade down when it simplifies the position without degrading it. Of course, the more you simplify, the more you need to understand about the endgame.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Playing for a Draw is against the Laws of Chess (1.4: The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move.) And it is the simplest way to lose.

If you need a draw, play good chess. The best chess you can play. If you are good in endgames, simplify. If you are good in tactics, make it complicated. Play the opening you have played for decades because most probably you know its positions better than your opponent. And avoid doing anything special for draw’s sake that you would not do if playing for a win or for fun.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, draw
---


# Question
Title: We found out that we made an illegal move later on in the game
I am playing with my friend. I didn't notice that my king was in check, so I made an illegal move. We noticed this after several more moves.

What should happen next? Do we restart the game or continue it as is?

# Answer
FIDE Laws of Chess 7.4a

> If during a game it is found that an illegal move, ..., has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.13. The Articles 4.3 and 4.6 \[touch move\] apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.

Of course, if you are playing with your friend, you can choose to do whatever you feel would be best. The above is simply what would happen in a FIDE tournament.
> 11 votes

---
Tags: rules, illegal-move
---


# Question
Title: Are 'Conveyor Belt' Chess variants studied?
A 'Conveyor Belt' Chess variant is where rows (And the pieces on them) of the chessboard move left, right, up or down based on different criteria.

I've not seen or heard of a chess variant where rows of a chess board move.

Are these a known and studied variant?

# Answer
It's not studied to my knowledge. This is my first time hearing of such a variant.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Why always 4...dxc6 and not 4...bxc6 in the Ruy Lopez Exchange?
```
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/1ppp1ppp/p1B5/4p3/4P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R b - - 0 1"]

```

In the Ruy Lopez Exchange, black always takes back the bishop with 4...dxc6. In Timothy Taylor's 2011 book *Slay the Spanish*, he advocates 4...bxc6 instead.

I want to analyze his lines and reach my own opinion, but I've never played these lines before. I want to know more about the arguments for 4...dxc6 that he is arguing against first, so that I can be a bit more skeptical about the lines he gives.

White still can't win a pawn with 4...bxc6 5.Nxe5 because of 5...Qe7 6.d4 d6 7.Nf3 Qxe4+.

I can see that 4...dxc6 does more for development than 4...bxc6 does, and it leads to two pawn islands instead of three, but 4...bxc6 captures towards the center.

Is there more to it than that? What is concrete analysis that's usually used to argue that 4...dxc6 is so superior that it is virtually always played?

# Answer
Good question. Indeed `4..bxc6` is extremely rare compared to the main line, and the reasons are multi-fold specially strategically, but foremost, from a concrete point of view it leads to a rather poor position for black after the immediate `d4-exd4-Qxd4` and white's completely controlling the centre:

```
 [title "Important concrete reply"]
 [fen "r1bqkbnr/2pp1ppp/p1p5/4p3/4P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5"]

 1.d4 exd4 2.Qxd4

```

From a strategic point of view, `4..bxc6`:

* leaves black with an isolated `a6` pawn without any effort required from white.
* More damaging to the structure than `dxc6` as black's left without any prospect of a queenside expansion since move four already! First repercussion of the latter is the fact that white has the assured prospect of blockading black's isolated `a` pawn and in doing so render it into a permanent weakness.
* Despite black having the bishop pair in principle, the bishops have very poor prospects in this structure, in particular the light squared one, e.g.: developing it along the long diagonal is no longer meaningful as the fianchetto option is gone and an indirect one with `c6-c5-Bb7` will in turn block-in the `f8` bishop. Moreover, to develop the bishop along the side diagonal `c8-h3` is now at least delayed for an extra tempo, which means white could easily include `h3` without any real drawbacks. Instead, with `dxc6` both bishops are immediately activated and the bishop pair compensation is more tangible (specially with `Bg4` being readily playable).
* The latter is really pointing to the fact that with `bxc6` black is left with very poor piece activity, and the structure guarantees no real outpost for the knight, in fact not even the immediate `Nf6` is playable after `bxc6 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nf6` the knight is pushed around to non-ideal posts such as `b6` or `e7` after `e5-Nd5-c4.`
* Unlike `bxc6`, `dxc6` is in fact challenging the immediate `d4` (which is one of white's main plans in this structure) as the queen trade becomes forced and having the bishop pair black definitely doesn't mind the endgame. Thus, as mentioned in the beginning, with `4...bxc6` black is even playing into white's hands by inviting `d4.`
* This line of `bxc6-d4-exd4-Qxd4` is really critical as it perfectly highlights the major differences between the two sides: white has all the space, perfectly healthy pawn structure, ready to castle (while black is at least 2 tempi away), while black has no prospect to claim the centre, nor to liquidate the isolated `a6` pawn. I highly encourage you to play through some of the ensuing lines after this move order, you'll quickly develop a feel for the kinds of struggles black is facing.

Now consider going through all above points but with the position after `4...dxc6:`

```
 [title "Main line after dxc6"]
 [fen "r1bqkbnr/1pp2ppp/p1p5/4p3/4P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5"]

```

in doing so, hopefully you'll be able to convince yourself that all the aspects of `dxc6` outweigh that of `bxc6,` both concretely and strategically. Last but not least, note that here the immediate `c3` (for `d4`) is not possible due to `Qd3,` moreover, black is well in time to keep the fight over `d4` alive (e.g. `5.O-O Bg4` pinning white's most important piece of they're to ever play `d4`).

At the high level, the key downsides to be emphasized for `4...bxc6` are: **isolated** `a` pawn, **no prospect** of expansion on the **queenside**, extremely **limited minor piece activity**, **delayed** development, and the **lack** of any ability to create a target in white's camp.
> 22 votes

# Answer
First of all, you are correct in your assessment, that taking towards the center normally is preferred. The reason for this is, that taking towards the center usually (!) allows for easier development and generally more active play. As a rule of thumb (remember - few absolutes in chess!) taking towards the center leads to sharper positions, taking away from it tends to favor calm games.

The Ruy Lopez often results in extremely rich middlegames, which for many players pose some difficulties, as (especially with white) you need to find a plan in a position where you mostly won't get away with hurling all your pawns at the enemies king and checkmating. Mindlessly developing your pieces is easy - coordinating them on a full board is not. I personally do not like the positions resulting from 4... bxc as, while maybe inherently not being bad, it gives white concrete targets to attack. Moreover the benefits for black (development, supporting d5) are a while away. Let's take a look at it.

1. Center
Since you now have a pawn on c6, d5 is basically screaming to be played - attacking white's e-pawn. However after a rather quiet d3 by white (the bishop is already out of the garage anyway) d5 doesn't really achieve a whole lot. If white were to take with 6. exd, you would have solved all your problems. However white is in no way obligated to do so (and shouldn't!). Taking on e4 yourself results in just a joke of a pawn structure.
Even if the tension is preserved black's pawn on e5 is in trouble. Nxe5 poses a realistic threat now - and there is no good way of defending that e-pawn (much like when white plays c3 too early in a Ruy Lopez!). Bd6 would kill the bishop, Qe7 is awful in so many ways and f3... Well, **never play f3**!

Here

```
[Title "Position after 4 ... bc 5. 0-0 d5 6. d3 de? 7. de"]
[fen "r1bqkbnr/2p2ppp/p1p5/4p3/4P3/5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w KQkq - 0 5"]

```

(Position after 4 ... bxc 5. 0-0 d5 6. d3 dxe? 7. dxe | Not the best moves for white - but the resulting position is not looking good for black.)

Which brings us to...

2. ... the doubled c-pawns Which may come under fire. The c6 pawn is only defended by the d-pawn - and you are going to move that one away.
3. Development Black opened b7 for his bishop, but the diagonal is now blocked by his c6 pawn. Developing to b7 anyway doesn't feel good. Another idea would be to push the a6-pawn and put the bishop on a6 - this however weakens the pawn severely and the bishop is somewhat misplaced on a6. Black doesn't really gain anything here.

I sadly do not have more time for more analysis, but white can find easy ways to put blacks position under pressure and will probably be in the driver seat for the rest of the game. Black is required to play really precisely to **hold** his position.

On a side note: 4. ... bxc 4. O-O has a 62% (!) win rate for white in the lichess masters database! The only commonly known grandmaster to play this is (Who else...? ^^) Bent Larsen. The game ended in a draw.
> 8 votes

# Answer
I was always taught that dc is simply to indirectly defend e5 since Ne5 Qd4 is advantage to black.
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: What is the best continuation for White?
```
[FEN "4r3/pq3k2/1p4p1/2p1Qn1p/2PpN3/3P4/PP3PPP/R5K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

It is White to move the above position.

After Ng5 check, the Black king can go only to g8 or f8.

If the Black king goes to g8, they lose their rook. After Kf8 by Black, what is White's best move?

# Answer
> 1 votes
White is easily winning in this position. Here is the best continuation according to Stockfish. I would trust Stockfish on this one since it should be pretty easy for a good tatictal player to figure out themselves.

```
 [FEN "4r3/pq3k2/1p4p1/2p1Qn1p/2PpN3/3P4/PP3PPP/R5K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ng5+ Kf8 2. Qh8+ Ke7 3. Re1+ Kd6 4. Qxe8 Qd7 5. Qxg6+ Kc7 6. Ne6+ Kb8 7. Qxf5 a5 8. Nxd4 Qxf5 9. Nxf5 a4

```

White is now two pawns and two pieces up. It is an easy stroll to victory lane from here.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Best is 2.Qh8+ Ke7, after which White has a choice:

1. Go for `3.Qh7+ Kf6 4.Qxb7 Kxg5`, when White has won a queen for a knight with a completely winning position.
2. Go for `3.Re1+`, which is slightly more complicated but leads to a forced mate according to Stockfish:

---

```
 [FEN "4r2Q/pq2k3/1p4p1/2p2nNp/2Pp4/3P4/PP3PPP/R5K1 w - - 0 3"]

3.Re1+ Ne3 4.Qg7+ Kd6 5.Qxb7 Re7 6.Qb8+ Kc6 7.fxe3 Rb7 8.Qa8 a5 9.exd4 cxd4 10.Qc8+ Rc7 11.Re6+ Kc5 12.Qf8+ Re7 13.Qxe7#.

```

---
Tags: strategy, positional-play, planning
---


# Question
Title: In Bb5 systems against the Sicilian, why does White exchange their b5 bishop without playing a6?
Isn't White giving up too much, i.e. one tempo in the opening and the bishop pair, for too little, i.e. doubled pawns?

For example, after

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6

```
4. Bc6 is the second option in Lichess Masters database.

# Answer
> 14 votes
Some things that are probably part of the answer, but probably not complete and concrete enough:

*1...a6 won't come.* There is no threat to a pawn on e5, the knight isn't pinned, the only point of 3.Bb5 is to exchange it on c6. So black doesn't waste a tempo on forcing white to do what he was already going to do.

On the other hand, black has a choice to make, between ...bxc6 and ...dxc6. By taking earlier, white can see which way black goes and set up his pieces accordingly. If, in contrast, he takes later, black can first see where white puts his pieces and then choose which way to take. So since it's going to happen anyway, better do it immediately and not give out more information just yet.

# Answer
> 7 votes
A few things:

1) White's actually not wasting any tempi. He has to move his bishop out anyway (in order to castle). Then, once on b5, taking on c6 doesn't waste a tempo since Black has to spend a tempo recapturing.

2) The doubled c-pawns are more of a big deal than they'd be in, say, the Ruy Lopez Exchange variation. Since Black has a pawn on c5 instead of c7, the weakness of the doubled pawns is more prominent.

3) You're right that White's giving up the bishop pair. This is the main reason the Bb5 systems are not the main line, and instead playing an early d4 is. It's really a matter of taste: if you believe giving your opponent doubled pawns is worth sacrificing the bishop pair, you should play the Bb5 system. Many people don't believe this.

4) As for not waiting for ...a6, White has to take action before Black changes the situation. For example, he may play ...Nd4 after developing more, or he may protect the c6-knight with a piece (e.g., ...Qc7), thus preventing White from giving Black doubled pawns.

# Answer
> 4 votes
A lot of it is simply to create an imbalance. Nakamura has mentioned this before about a different opening B-for-N trade, and sometimes it is done without even getting doubled pawns in return, like an early Bg4 in the Slav then putting the pawns on c6 d5 and e6 to retain some control of the light squares.

Even in the Caro-Kan Two-Knights variation you see the same trade: 1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 Bg4 and the B is often traded off after 4.h3 Bf3 5.Qf3 (In the 1960 World Championship match against Botvinnik, Tal even played 5.gf to imbalance the position even more. )

# Answer
> 4 votes
The main reason is that White does not want to face `Nd4`in many lines. They want to make sure they will "hurt" Black's pawn structure with `Bxc6`.

Compare this line with others where the Black knight is actually pinned, like `3...d6` for instance. There, White has no reason to hurry and trade so quickly

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, doubled-pawn, development, bishop-pair
---


# Question
Title: Are there any options for learning chess from people on the Internet?
I'm not sure if I remember correctly, but I think there used to be an option on Chess.com for learning chess from people on the Net (I'm not referring to the Lessons or Tactics or Drills options). I think the option was named 'Coaches', though I might be mistaken.

So was there ever such an option on Chess.com? It doesn't seem to be there, now (I use the Chess.com **app**, though. Maybe the app doesn't have the option?). I'd like some information from fellow users of Chess.com.

If such an option is not available on Chess.com (or the app), could someone name a site where I can find people who can teach chess over the Net?

# Answer
> 4 votes
You can find a lot of coaches in different languages on https://www.chess.com/coaches and also on https://lichess.org/coach.

# Answer
> 1 votes
We recommend Alberto Chueca, one of the best chess coaches in the world. His students are getting great results and his price is very economical.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The Internet Chess Club is a subscription-based chess server. They have a list of accredited coaches (Coaches) who you can book for online lessons (shared board and talk via Skype). Fees vary from $50-$100 for grandmasters down to $20-$30 for FMs or IMs. They also tend to be lower for coaches in poorer countries.

Apart from being a member for many years I have no commercial connection with ICC. I've never actually used the services of a coach but the system seems to work well enough.

---
Tags: online-chess, coach
---


# Question
Title: How do age and initial rating correlate to decline in playing strength with age?
The current Rausis phone cheating scandal saw a player with an initial rating of about 2500 in his 50's improve by about 200 rating points in 6 years. This improvement was remarkable because older players are expected to get weaker with age.

It even received attention a couple of week's ago, before the scandal broke, with the suggestion that he was hacking the system by playing mostly much weaker players and taking advantage of the 400 point rule.

Has there been any analysis showing the correlation between age and rating on one hand with expected decline on the other?

For example, I'm in my 60's and my FIDE rating is about 1700. How much decline can I expect in the next 10 years? Would that be much different for a 2200 master in his 60's? For a 2500 GM? For 1500 player?

There is a chess.com blog article which looks at the data for just one month which is unsatisfactory in many ways. It shows a graph of average rating in 5 year bands but with no analysis following players with similar starting ages and ratings to see what the decline is over a given period.

The data is there. FIDE publish more than 18 years of rating data which is available for download. Olimpbase have data available for download going back another 30 years although then only strong (master level) players had ratings.

# Answer
I looked at the data briefly and got some interesting conclusions.

I used data from FIDE webpage for january in years 2006-2019.

I calculated each player's rating change in consecutive years and used player's age in the first of the two as the age when this rating change occurred. Then I simply calculated the average. The result is this:

*As you can see, players are on average gaining rating only until the age of 27, and afterwards they tend to slowly lose rating. Children gain the most rating per year, which is very intuitive.*

Rating range 19-90 from up close:

*Rating loss increase looks linear.*

Cumulative rating change:

*This is of course cumulative change since the age of 10.*

Secondly, I did the same thing but separated players into groups. I looked at each of their entry in the data and put them into respective categories according to the maximum rating achieved in it: which might not be their actual peak rating, but should be a good indication of their top strength.

*Gains are much larger here. Might be due to the fact that the negative contribution of sub-1500 players isn't included. Intuitively, higher rated players have higher average rating gains, but the decline rate seems to be similar regardless of the strength.*

*The linear range up close.*

*Cumulative again.*
> 16 votes

# Answer
As suggested in the question I have taken FIDE rating data from 1992 (when active/inactive flags were first introduced) through to September 2019 taken from Olimpbase and FIDE and loaded it into a database which has allowed me to run SQL queries against the data to get some answers for this question. I looked at average decline in playing strength for players in 5 year age bands from 15 through to 85 and in 100 point playing strength bands from 1500 through to 2700.

I shall present my conclusions from looking at the data first, followed by a brief description of my method followed by the data.

**Conclusions**

First, I should emphasise that here I am talking about averages. Individuals will obviously vary, possibly wildly from the averages.

* Young, weak players improve faster than older, stronger players. Players in the two weakest bands, 1500 - 1700, continued to improve through to their early 30's.
* Mid strength players (1700 - 2200) start declining first, in their late 20's. At this age weaker players are still improving and stronger players are maintaining their level.
* Mid strength players decline faster in middle age and early old age than both weaker and stronger players.
* Weaker players are more variable (have a higher standard deviation) than stronger players until you get to your 80's when I guess it starts falling apart for everybody.
* Finally, to answer the question about my prospects. I am in the 60-65 and 1700-1800 band so I can "look forward" to an expected decline of 139 points over the next 10 years with a standard deviation of 118. Of course I expect this not to happen. I blame my current low rating on getting "mugged" by several very under-rated juniors last year and I promise I will study more (fingers crossed behind my back).

**Method**

For each age and rating band I selected the average rating decline over a 10 year period and the standard deviation for each player in the band who was active at the beginning and end of the 10 year period. I restricted these calculations to where I had at least 50 data points, hence the gaps in the following data for older age groups. I ran this query over all the data in the database.

For each age/rating point there are two numbers. The first is the average decline. If this is a negative number it indicates an average *increase* in rating. The second number, in brackets, is the standard deviation. For a normal distribution 95% of the results would fall within a range of +/- 2 standard deviations. However average improvement/decline is almost certainly not normally distributed. Nevertheless this figure gives a useful indication of variability.

For instance, the first data point for the 15-20 age band and the 1500-1600 rating band is -161 (174). This means that the average rating increase over a 10 year period for players in this band is 161 points and the standard deviation is 174. This high standard deviation indicates that some players will be improving by several times as much as the average while some may stay roughly the same or even decline.

Compare this with the figures for the 50-55 age band and 2600-2700 rating band. The average decline is 43 and the standard deviation is only 28. This suggests that most, if not all the players in this band are declining slightly in rating.

**Results**

```
AgeBand = 15-20
1500 -     1600 -     1700 -     1800 -    1900 -    2000 -    2100 -    2200 -    2300 -  2400 -   2500 -    2600
-161 (174) -137 (169) -123 (152) -99 (141) -87 (132) -84 (118) -94 (112) -94 (107) -94 (9) -103 (8) -101 (65) -93 (47)

AgeBand = 20-25
1500 -    1600 -     1700 -     1800 -    1900 -    2000 -    2100 -    2200 -    2300 -   2400 -   2500 -    2600
-89 (158) -58 (151) -34 (130)   -28 (123) -21 (109) -15 (95) -23 (82)   -32 (79)  -30 (76) -35 (64) -35 (55) -28 (52)

AgeBand = 25-30
1500 -    1600 -     1700 -     1800 -    1900 -    2000 -    2100 -    2200 -    2300 -   2400 -   2500 -    2600
-71 (149) -19 (142)  2 (124)    20 (122)  29 (102) 16 (88)    7 (75)   -2   (69)    -1 (65) -4 (55)   0 (51)    1 (40)

AgeBand = 30-35
1500 -    1600 -     1700 -     1800 -    1900 -    2000 -    2100 -    2200 -    2300 -   2400 -   2500 -    2600
-53 (144) -18 (147)  21 (121)   37 (102)  48 (87)   35 (79)   29 (75)   16 (62)   17 (59)  14 (51)  16 (47)   18 (59)

AgeBand = 35-40
1500 -    1600 -     1700 -     1800 -    1900 -    2000 -    2100 -    2200 -    2300 -   2400 -   2500 -    2600
3 (125)   22 (123)  41 (116)    58 (100)  63 (93)   51 (79)   44 (69)   30 (60)   29 (56)  25 (47)  25 (48)   33 (38)

AgeBand = 40-45
1500 -    1600 -     1700 -     1800 -    1900 -    2000 -    2100 -    2200 -    2300 -   2400 -   2500 -    2600
25 (113)  22 (110)   70 (120)   73 (108)  80 (91)   66 (78)   57 (68)   42 (61)   38 (57)  35 (51)  38 (44)   38 (37)

AgeBand = 45-50
1500 -    1600 -     1700 -     1800 -    1900 -    2000 -    2100 -    2200 -    2300 -   2400 -   2500 -    2600
22 (135)  54 (121)   73 (111)   93 (100)  91 (93)   80 (80)   69 (70)   54 (66)   48 (57)  41 (51)  38 (43)   49 (34)

AgeBand = 50-55
1500 -    1600 -     1700 -     1800 -    1900 -    2000 -    2100 -    2200 -    2300 -   2400 -   2500 -    2600
23 (123)  85 (116)   91 (120)   106 (99)  109 (89)  95 (82)   81 (73)   66 (70)   57 (63)  53 (57)  43 (40)   43 (28)

AgeBand = 55-60
1500 -    1600 -     1700 -     1800 -    1900 -    2000 -    2100 -    2200 -    2300 -   2400 -   2500 -    2600
66 (127)  84 (103)   117 (106)  129 (106) 126 (103) 108 (89)  92 (76)   73 (72)   70 (67)  54 (54)  55 (47)   44 (38)

AgeBand = 60-65
1500 -    1600 -     1700 -     1800 -    1900 -    2000 -    2100 -    2200 -    2300 -   2400 -   2500 -    2600
93 (123)  123 (126)  139 (118)  146 (106) 136 (95)  117 (90)  105 (78)  87 (76)   82 (79)  70 (72)  93 (77)

AgeBand = 65-70
1500 -    1600 -     1700 -     1800 -    1900 -    2000 -    2100 -    2200 -    2300 -   2400 -   2500 -    2600
96 (111)  123 (122)  144 (120)  141 (107) 152 (102) 124 (89)  112 (80)  108 (87)  91 (82)  81 (81)  69 (37)

AgeBand = 70-75
1500 -    1600 -     1700 -     1800 -    1900 -    2000 -    2100 -    2200 -    2300 -   2400 -   2500
96 (115)  119 (131)  147 (128)  153 (124) 161 (104) 135 (93)  125 (84)  115 (91)  93 (74)  63 (65)

AgeBand = 75-80
1500 -    1600 -     1700 -     1800 -    1900 -    2000 -    2100 -    2200 -    2300 -   2400
119 (207) 156 (180)  171 (123)  167 (141) 173 (101) 156 (101) 138 (94)  126 (96)  134 (92)

AgeBand = 80-85
1700 -     1800 -    1900 -     2000 -    2100 -    2200 -    2300
75 (167)   148 (186)  156 (169) 179 (102) 177 (118) 92 (174)

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: rating, statistics, aging
---


# Question
Title: What are the different training strategies for different player strengths?
What are the key training areas *(Openings, Middlegames, Tactics, Strategies, Endgame, Studies, etc)* and tools *(books, computer engines, databases, etc)* in which players of different levels of playing strength *(for instance 1800, 2100, 2400, 2500, 2600, Elo rating etc)*, should focus on in order to improve their chess to the next level of understanding and playing strength?

# Answer
First, this outline is more for the average player, who still may be very decent, but is not likely to be become a professional.

Beginners up to 1800, it is mostly about tactics: Tactics, tactics, and more tactics. I also found that having a very strong dose of endgames, even when I got my first rating of 1036 USCF back in 1980, has stuck with me all the way through being a Master. I still love Fine's "Basic Chess Endings" (any mistakes in it as far overshadowed by the principles that it puts forth).

Around 1800, people start getting more clued in on positional play, and start picking up more on that. I still love Ludek Pachman's trilogy: "Complete Chess Strategy". That was the first time I started to see real plans enter into my games, and I still credit that trilogy with making me a Master. For the first time, I started to really grasp pawn play.

Also, around 1800, I also think that players need to understand HOW to play opening pawn structures instead of focusing on memorizing openings that when their opponent deviates, they are lost and on their own. For this, books like Soltis' "Pawn Structure Chess" (a really bad book if you are looking at it with a computer, but the underlying principles are very strong), and Mauricio Flores Ríos' book "Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide" is a fantastic book that expounds upon what was in the Soltis book, and does it a lot better, but also at a higher level.

Starting at 2000, assuming you have a shot at 2200 and higher, you are going to start needing specific openings, and memorization as you face stronger competition. All along, you should have been still studying more and more endgame material as you will also need that when you faces "monsters".

Over 2200, you are talking about in-depth refinement of what you have learned. A lot of people buy the Dvoretsky books before they are ready, and now is the time that you are just getting started to be ready for those. They will help with small details, and a lot of it above 2200 is analyzing better and better, so not only will his books refined and expand your knowledge, they are hand-picked difficult problems that need a lot of deep analysis.

Once at 2400, if you have not already had a professional coach, you probably will need one to really gain a lot more strength. In addition, if you have a kid, who is super talented, and clearly going places, it is also probably a good idea for them to have a professional coach at a lower rating, and younger age to get the most benefit.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: learning, training, study
---


title: Castling, is it necessary to take it?

text:
# Question
Title: Castling, is it necessary to take it?
I've got a simple question, that I'm having difficulty finding an answer for...

If it is possible to castle (I know the conditions for it), and I decide to move the king to the square where it would end up in castling, do I have to "take the castling", i.e. move the rook too?

# Answer
> 12 votes
Yes.

Otherwise this would be an illegal move because during castling the king moves two squares, but apart from castling it is only allowed to move one square.

# Answer
> 5 votes
This is a very good question indeed but it took me a long time to understand what you wanted.

So you are programming an interface and you wonder how the computer can tell if a player wants to play `Kg1` or `0-0` taking short castle as an example. The answer is that if both moves are legal then none of them takes precedence and the player can play whichever they desire. You then need a device how the player can make their intention clear to the computer. For instance dragging their king outside the board could do the castling.

As BlindKungFuMaster explains in standard chess you do not have to worry about it since the King has to be on `e1` for a castle to be a legal move. Then there is no other legal move that could take the King on `g1` thus there is no ambiguity.

In *Fisher Chess (chess 960)* however you can have an initial position with the King on `f1` and a Rook on `h1`. In this case both `Kf1-g1` and `0-0` would be legal moves. Even for over the board play the Laws (Appendix F) recommend a special procedure for castling to avoid misunderstanding.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Yes, moving both the king and the rook are necessary to castle.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Yes, but one additional point: If you have started to place the king on g1, for example, but you change your mind AND you have not taken your hand off it, you can still move it one square to another square as long as you have not also touched the rook.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I know this is a late answer to a question that got bumped, but there are a couple of essential points to add to @BlindKungFuMaster's answer:

1. There can be no pieces on the squares in between the king and the castling rook (So knight/bishop on the kingside, and knight/bishop/queen on the queenside).
2. It must be the first move for both pieces involved - So if you want to castle to the kingside, and either the rook on H1 or the king has moved off of their square and then back, you cannot castle to that side. If the king has not moved, but the rook on H1 has, and the rook on A1 has not, then you can still castle queenside.\*

\*- Note: Square reference assumes castling as White.

---
Tags: rules, castling
---


# Question
Title: What is the better way to stop blundering all my games?
I am on the road that starts from the "Beginner" stage, trying to leave this "town". I know and understand the rules, I also understand most of the "classic" tactics. I am able to reproduce some mating patterns (and to understand them I think).

But yet I have some difficulties to leave the "Beginner" town: I blunder often, mostly because I overlook some possible moves from the opponent (a little bit like if I was playing "alone").

It is very difficult for me to force myself to consider all the possible moves of the opponents. Please note that I play mostly on computer (either against the computer, or in live/online chess against other human beings).

So the question is: what is the better way to stop blundering all my games?

Should I forbid myself to "undo" my moves when I play against the computer? How should I read the board? Is there a standard way of forcing oneself to consider all the consequences of a move?

# Answer
> 15 votes
> I am on the road that starts from the "Beginner" stage, trying to leave this "town". I know and understand the rules, I also understand most of the "classic" tactics. I am able to reproduce some mating patterns (and to understand them I think).

Based on your information I think I can safely assume that **you would see those blunders if someone pointed them out.** This is an important fact that helps me to recommend you the solution.

> It is very difficult for me to force myself to consider all the possible moves of the opponents.

You should not do that-it requires too much mental energy and wastes too much time.

> So the question is: what is the better way to stop blundering all my games?

Much better approach is **to understand what your opponent's plan is** and to search **the best moves** he can play to implement it. This requires the ability to **understand the position that arose on the board**, and a **fair amount of objectivity**. To achieve this start with the following actions:

1. Learn the basic moves and **middle game themes/plans** of your openings-I find *Starting Out* series to do a wonderful job, I use them myself too.
2. During play **detach yourself from your emotions** and use your knowledge of openings, tactics and middle game plans to **evaluate quality** of the opponents moves. Ask yourself questions like "Where does my opponent lead the attack?" , "What are my weaknesses?" , "Is this move played consistently-does it support opponents plan or is it a deviation?".
3. **Tactical mastery greatly reduces blundering. Try to solve puzzles and try to improve this part of the game by constantly playing.**

> Should I forbid myself to "undo" my moves when I play against the computer?

**NO!!!**

This is the best approach you can use-if you make a blunder just memorize that it is a bad move. Undo move and **try to play a better one based on your own knowledge**. If you fail to find satisfactory move, just consult books I have recommended or setup a position on your computer and order it to analyze. This will provide you much needed **experience** in playing that position, and at some point you will **simply start to "feel" the good moves.**

> How should I read the board?

Watch the **entire** board and look **all the squares** opponent's piece attacks ( the piece he played last with ). This is important, **I have this flaw in my own game too** and it creeps in because you **do not** "respect" opponents attack enough-believing that you have **faster and stronger** counter-attack or simply believing that your game is **much better** and he should resign instead prolonging.

> Is there a standard way of forcing oneself to consider all the consequences of a move?

Use the combination of all the above advices-watch **all the squares** his last playing piece attacks and try to **understand what role** that move plays in his **overall** plan. Knowing the basic moves of the opening will help you to survive 15+ moves, and knowing basic middle game plans will **reduce your calculation time** since you will be able to assume **with great accuracy** what is **the point behind the last move** your opponent played. Also, by knowing your opening and its middle game basics, you will find **your counter moves** much easier and much faster.

Tactical skill is also important here, and just by continuing to solve puzzles you will be able to find hidden threats faster, both for yourself and for your opponent-which will **strengthen** your evaluation accuracy.

Hopefully this will help, leave a comment if you need further help.

Best regards.

# Answer
> 12 votes
AlwaysLearningNewStuff's answer is very good but I'd like to approach the problem by giving a simple piece of advice I read from GM John Nunn's "Secrets of Practical Chess":

> Once, I played 100 games against Mike Cook at 10 minutes (for him) vs. 5 minutes (for me). At that time, Mike was about 2300 strength. About halfway through the series (which I eventually won 88-12) he explained his disappointment:
>
> "I thought that I would see lots of advanced strategic concepts in these games, but actually all I've learnt is LDPO."
>
> "LDPO?"
>
> "Loose Pieces Drop Off."
>
> During the remaining games, I saw what he meant. Most of the games were decided by relatively simple tactics involving undefended pieces, when the LP would duly DO.

If a 2300 rated player loses most of his games by leaving his pieces undefended and then losing them, that might be something to watch out for. If you notice you or your opponent has undefended pieces, you should look for tactics very carefully. Of course that doesn't remove all blunders and of course that is not easy to do (otherwise a 2300 surely would not fall for simple tactics) but generally it may still help you improve your game.

# Answer
> 8 votes
## Why Blunders Happen

Personally, I think the biggest factor in blunders is a lack of objectivity. As humans, we have a very real, natural bias in our own favor that prevents us from evaluating ourselves, or our work, objectively. Ego, overconfidence, however you might call it--these are the things that blunders are made of, because at heart, a blunder is just some move that fails to account for a threat. In my experience, this always boils down to one of two things:

* My opponent had a threat that I didn't see.
* My opponent's threat was more significant than I realized.

The specifics as to *why* I didn't see their threat, or didn't consider it well enough, may vary slightly, but the root is always the same: for whatever reason, **I didn't consider the board objectively enough**. I was too wrapped up in my own plans to even consider that there might be ways to interrupt them, or I figured that my position was so strong that I could play carelessly, or I was fatigued and couldn't focus, or I was under time pressure and didn't have time to consider the position as carefully as I should have.

Some of these underlying factors are out of my control: time pressure and fatigue, especially, affect even the greatest players*. But the others, I can train myself to handle, because they're all essentially the same thing: for some reason, I thought that I could get away with not evaluating the board thoroughly **from my opponent's point of view**.

## The Single Best Blunder-Reduction Habit I Know

Since you play mostly electronically, I recommend you make use of one of the most powerful features of that medium: the ability to view the board from your opponent's seat. Almost all chess software (both online and offline) provides the ability to **"flip" the board**.

Every time you're considering your move, get into the habit of flipping the board and viewing the position and your candidate move from the other side. Try to come up with the best move for your opponent. This is where understanding your opponent's ideas comes into play, but if you don't know what he's doing, just try to find the best move as if you had his pieces. If you're stuck for where to start, look especially for threats created by his previous move.

Really try hard to find a strong move: there's this temptation to slack off when looking at the board from the other side, because you feel like you're betraying your own position or something: But if you can find a winning move for your opponent, **that's awesome**. You found it *before you allowed it to happen*, and now you can choose some other line!

Nine times out of ten\**, this strategy will reveal any serious flaws in the move you're about to make. As you play more and your visualization improves, eventually you'll be able do this without physically flipping the board, and once you get used to the thought process, I *strongly* recommend that you try to wean yourself from the visual crutch of viewing the board from the opposite side, since you can't do that OTB. But as a beginner, the visual aid can be a huge benefit, and it helps to break the "I don't want to play against myself!" mentality.

---

\*Not being a great player myself, I can't speak to what other pressures they may face.

\**Citation Needed

# Answer
> 4 votes
I just want to comment on one aspect that helped me a lot with eliminating blunders. I am lucky enough to be able to play with live opponents as well as online and with computer. Even when I play friendly games, we **use the touch move rule and no undos**! What it did to me (after many games of course) is developing a serious play attitude (spotting blunders) subconsciously. It is because I know, I won't be able to fix it by simple undo.

Also general good tip for beginner is in my opinion the following attitude:

1. Quick check for opponents threats- if you spot one- fix it!
2. Quick check of your tactical resources- if you spot one- go for it!
3. If none of the above happens, make a wise positional/strategic move.

There is also a great program for 'light' training that helped me a lot with spotting these threats and resources is chessimo. You can even get it on iPhone as I did! If you don't want this particular one- find something that has large number of simple tactics, so spotting them becomes second nature.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You can't eliminate blunders entirely (even today's top engines blunder), but this simple piece of advice will cut down the rate of blunders dramatically:

> When you see a good move, sit on your hands and see if you can find a better one.
>
> -- Siegbert Tarrasch

---
Tags: learning, training, psychology, best-practice, blunder
---


# Question
Title: Rules: How does right to castle and en passant get considered for the purpose of calculating a threefold repetition?
I'm writing a chess app, and have some questions regarding the intricacies of the threefold repetition rules.

As of 2018, the FIDE handbook has this to say about what constitutes identical positions for the purpose of threefold repetitions.

> 9.2.2 Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if:
>
> 9.2.2.1 at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant
>
> 9.2.2.2 a king had castling rights with a rook that has not been moved, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.

This question and `Rule 9.2.2.2` address calculating right to castle. Looking at both, my conclusion is that it only checks whether the relevant piece(s) have moved; other restrictions like check, obstructions, or even whether the relevant rook was captured are not considered (though the last is probably irrelevant).

The same rule also seems to specify that each player starts with 2 castling rights- one for kingside and one for queenside- rather than 3- one for the king and one for each rook.

So the first part of my question is, am I correct in my assessment of how the right to castle affects whether positions are identical?

For the second part of my question, there seems to be a little ambiguity regarding en-passant.`Rule 9.2.2.1` is clear about the case of if a pawn can legally en-passant one turn and can't during a later turn, then the positions aren't identical even if everything else is the same.

But there are two cases with en passant that aren't clear, or at least, should be clarified in light of how right to castle is calculated.

First, say a pawn moves two squares, thus making it capturable by en-passant, but there's no enemy pawn next to its destination. Does the fact that it would have been vulnerable to en passant make the position non-identical to another otherwise identical position a few turns later?

Second, say a pawn moves two squares, landing next to an enemy pawn, giving that pawn the right to en-passant, but where exercising the right to en-passant would expose the king (thus barring the otherwise legal en passant). Would that position be considered different from an otherwise identical position a few turns later?

# Answer
You have identified the correct rule governing these situations. 9.2.2 is the relevant clause that applies; 9.2.2.1 and 9.2.2.2 are just clarifications of this rule.

So to answer your queries:

1) Your interpretation of castling rights is correct. Each player has two castling rights which are irrespective of the current board position. The right to castle short is lost only when the king or h-rook moves for the first time. The right to castle long is lost only when the king or a-rook moves for the first time. Other restrictions are irrelevant.

2) If a pawn moves two squares without an enemy pawn ready to capture en passant next to it, the position is the same as the one which could reoccur after some more moves. This is because all the players have the same possible (legal) moves (the relevant en passant is, was, and will be unavailable) so under 9.2.2 it would be the same position.

3) Similarly, if en passant is illegal due to a pin (exposing own king to check) or another reason, it does not count as a possible (legal) move, so under 9.2.2 the position and the repeated one later are considered the same.

An additional note: comparing FEN is not a correct implementation according to the FIDE rules, since FEN always records down a pawn moving two squares, regardless of whether an en passant capture is possible or not. Hence a direct PGN comparison would yield a wrong conclusion in the two scenarios you described.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I think that your question is an excellent one. @Remillion, @itub and @SmallChess have answered it already. I believe that I mostly—perhaps wholly—agree with their answers, so now I would like to add an answer on a different level.

The FIDE has not shown that it fully grasps the *kind* of question you are asking. You and I get it. To some extent, the FIDE does not.

Therefore, for the time being, one probably cannot find authoritative answers to all such questions. This is a shame. If the FIDE asked your advice, they could fix the rules, but they don't quite see the need. Not yet.

The FIDE's problem (though imperfectly grasped by the FIDE) is to express game mechanics in a way that

* is logically complete,
* does not require the reader to process the phraseology of rulebook language through complex chains of verbal inference,
* is unambiguous,
* is unlikely to be incorrectly understood, and
* is computationally tractable.

Moreover, it would help if the FIDE would do as the American Contract Bridge League (ACBL) has done, cleanly separating game mechanics (which are abstract mathematical/logical constructs) from rules of player conduct (which are concrete and inherently imprecise).

A good software engineer like you implicitly understands the problem. The FIDE, unfortunately, so far, is still groping toward an understanding.
> 6 votes

# Answer
While comparing FEN strings may be common practice, I don't think it is correct according a close reading of the rule. I would say that the rule is already completely specified by its first sentence (emphasis added):

> Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and **the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same**.

The rest is an addendum just to emphasize that the "possible moves of all the pieces" may be different for seemingly identical positions (i.e., all pieces in the same squares) due to castling or en passant. But I think it would be fundamentally wrong to count an "en passant state change" when no en passant move was actually possible, either because there was no enemy pawn next to the pawn that just moved or the enemy pawn is pinned. FEN records an "en passant target square" anyway for simplicity of implementation, but that doesn't mean that it is a *possible move*.

As for castling, lack of castling rights due to check or obstruction doesn't matter for the purpose of this rule because if you couldn't castle due to check or obstruction in position 1, the same must be true for position 3 if all the pieces are in the same squares. If they were not, the position would already be obviously different without having to look at castling rights!
> 4 votes

# Answer
> ...So the first part of my question is, am I correct in my assessment of how the right to castle affects whether positions are identical?...
>
> ...other restrictions like check, obstructions, or even whether the relevant rook was captured are not considered (though the last is probably irrelevant)...

Yes. Imagine we play a game from the starting position, but you don't have castling rights and I do. Obviously, it'd be a different game. For instance, you won't be to castle in Ruy Lopez. Winning advantage for me even before the first move.

> First, say a pawn moves two squares, thus making it capturable by en passant, but there's no enemy pawn next to its destination. Does the fact that it would have been vulnerable to en-passant make the position non-identical to another otherwise identical position a few turns later?

Pawns never move backward. A position that no enemy pawn being able to explore en passant is obviously different to one that does.

> Second, say a pawn moves two squares, landing next to an enemy pawn, giving that pawn the right to en passant, but where exercising the right to en passant would expose the king (thus barring the otherwise legal en passant)

You don't have to check for king safety.

I think you're over-complicating the rules. In programming, all you have to do is compare your FEN strings (ignore 50 moves counter and impossible en passant).

```
FEN compareFEN = ...;
for (i from 0 to current move) {
    FEN fen = fens[i]
    if compareFENIgnore50MoveAndImpossibleEnpassant(compareFEN, fen)
        print("Repetition found!")
}

```
> 2 votes

# Answer
This is an important corner case for programming and also comes up in certain chess problems. I begin explanations by saying that castling and en passant are handled slightly differently, but don’t worry about this. Each is handled in the most sensible way.

Ideally one would look ahead in the game to find out whether the moves are actually playable. For en passant this is totally practicable because it just means looking one move ahead. Can the en passant actually be played or does a pin prevent it?

Whether or not castling is actually playable may be complicated to determine by looking st the deeper future of the game. So the rule simply looks at whether the two rights have changed, i.e. whether king or rook have just moved.

A genetics metaphor might be “check castling genotype and ep phenotype”.

This is the intention behind the FIDE rules according to the head of the rules committee. There is some unwillingness to make arbitrary changes to the wording, but the current 2018 phrasing seems fairly clear. Certainly FIDE get the exact issue here.

This applies both over the board and for chess problems
> 2 votes

# Answer
Although it does not directly answer the question, here is a chess problem that demonstrates how the right to castle affects calculating threefold repetition. I sourced it from Yet Another Chess Problem Databse.

```
[Title "Nenad Petrović, Problem (Zagreb) 1959, 1st Prize, Mate In 8"]
[FEN "r3k2r/p2p4/p1pP2p1/5pN1/5p2/1Q3p2/PP4b1/KB6 w kq - 0 1"]

1. Qb7 {In the initial position, Black has both castling rights.} Rd8 2. Qb3 Ra8 {The starting diagram is reached again, but now Black has lost queenside castling rights.} 3. Bd3 Rh1+ 4. Bb1 Rh8 {For the third and final time we have the same diagram, but now Black has lost both castling rights and has no hope of claiming a draw.} 5. Qc3 Rh1 6. Qg7 Rxb1+ 7. Kxb1 Rb8 8. Qg8#

```

The point is that when Black plays 4... Rh8 they may not claim a draw by threefold repetition. This is because, in each instance, the diagram is the same, but the rights, i.e. Black’s ability to castle, are not. In position #1, Black has both rights, in position #2, Black has only one right, and in position #3, Black has zero rights. Each position is different, and therefore, by the FIDE laws of chess, as cited in other answers, Black cannot claim a draw.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rules, castling, en-passant, threefold-repetition
---


# Question
Title: I'm looking for more information on "Goldmann" of the Goldmann Variation (Caro-Kann)
I'm working out the Caro-Kann Defense, and I need your help.

In the Lichess study below, I am dealing with the Goldman Variation. I couldn't find out anything about the chess player Goldman, nor could I found useful hints in the web.

```
[Event "Caro-Kann Defense Study-Goldman  Variation"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Qf3 dxe4 (3... e6 4. d4 Nf6 5. e5 Nfd7 6. Qg3 c5)    (3... Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. d4 e6 6. Qg3 c5 7. Nf3)  (3... d4 4. Bc4 e6 5. Nce2 c5   6. d3 Nc6 7. Qg3) 4. Nxe4 Nd7 (4... Nf6) 5. d4 (5. Ne2 Ngf6 6. N2c3 g6) 5... Ndf6 6. c3

```

Can anybody point me towards more information about Goldmann?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Warren H. Goldman wrote a book titled "New Ideas in Old Settings: Q-B3 against the Caro-Kann". It was published by Chess Ltd. (December 1979). It's still available from Amazon, and perhaps other sellers.

In *Kaissiber* No. 15 (Summer 2000), there was a thirty-page article about the "Dispute of Theoreticians" on the Goldman Variation (1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Qf3) and its exponents.

---
Tags: caro-kann
---